The problem is that breasts sell product, especially in the geek market.
Case in point: a few months ago Dragon had the gall to put a scantily clad male on their cover. The next month the fan mail apparently was replaced by hate mail from homophobes who claimed they couldn't even bring themselves to buy that issue because of the cover. In subsequent months they got plenty of mail in support of that cover, but the fact remains that the ltest issue is dutifully decorated by a pair of Dark Elf females dressed for a night out at the local S+M club.
My point is that they are selling to a particular market, and that market, right or wrong, as a deep-seated fascination with breasts. Gaming magazines focus on E3 booth babes for the same reason Sports Illustrated has a swimsuit issue; because it grabs the attention of their target audience and sell magazines.
Personally, I agree with you. I would love to see the maturity level of the PC gaming community raised a few notches, but the sad fact is that the industry will continue to put out what sells. For the record, I know a lot more women who are interested in Sports Illustrated than [random PC Gaming mag], and I only know one woman who reads Dragon.
I guess what it comes down to is you aren't their target market. You should let them know that by not buying their magazines.
I'm not missing the point at all. Based on my experience, designing a robot to use human tools is an incredibly bad idea, and the result will be expensive and error-prone.
Again, based on my experience, it will still be cheaper to have 2 sets of tools, one set for humans and one set for robots. A machine-centric toolset and a machine to use that toolset, even in a "general purpose" situation, will always be much cheaper and easier to design, and the result will be more reliable, than trying to design a machine to use human tools.
Your hand is an incredibly complex system,.I had no idea how complex it was until I spent a year automating tasks previously done by hand. Replicating the tasks that can be done with human hands is hard enough, having to replicate the "grasping qualities"[1] increases the difficulty by at least an order of magnitude, and not just in design but in fabrication as well.
You are correct that the robot in my example only had to do one task, and it's a damn good thing! The fact that the task was so simple only lends further support to my arguement. Every additional task increases the difficulty and reduces the efficiency and reliability of the design. Multiply that by the increased difficulty and reduced efficiency and reliability inherent in designing around human tools, and you will quickly exceed the cost of designing a new machine-centric toolset. Add to that the fact that the machine-centric toolset will be considerably lighter and smaller than the human-centric one, and it totally boggles my mind that NASA is even considering their current course.
[1] meaning shape, friction, deformity, and all the other qualities a human tool is designed to take advantage of.
The type of security the bill is designed to promote has nothing to do with firmware. Firmware is in no way connected to proprietary vs open file formats and the public beng able to verify the integrity of it's data, which is what the whole debate is actually about.
If you haven't read Villanueva's letter, you should. If you have, you need to read it again. Either way, you are obviously arguing from a position of ignorance (and on more than one front, at that!) Or maybe you're just a troll and I haven't yet noticed the hook in my mouth...
The Holy War against the West wouldn't exist if we had kept our noses out of middle east politics over the last 50 years. There is no mysterious Islamic doctrine that says they must bring down America. We have brought this upon ourselves through our self-righteous foreign policy. Perhaps you should actually learn something about the situation before you start spouting off about it.
The only potential buzzword I see in there is "jingoistic", though I can't be sure since I've never actually heard a marketroid say it. "Vacuous" and "bullshit" are definately not buzzwords, though. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with their meanings?
Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not a direct response to American meddling in the Middle East? Whatever your on, I'll take 2, because that has to be some good shit!
When I was working for a company that produced custom industrial robots I dealt with a similar situation on one of my first projects.
Basically, all the machine had to do was measure and cut wire. That's a pretty simple task, and the whole thing could have been finished in a week for a few thousand dollars. For some reason, though, the customer insisted that instead of using easily replaced, sensible cutting blades designed specifically for the machine, it had to use the custom made, diagonal cutters their assemblers were using to cut the stuff by hand. The reason being that the diagonal cutters were of a special material required for the job (a medical application). Of course, we could have easily made machine blades out of the same material for about 1/20 of the cost, but the customer insisted...
The end result: the machine took almost 2 months to complete and cost almost $15,000, it requires constant re-calibration because the cutters move a tiny bit with each cut, and it takes nearly an hour to change and align the cutters when they dull. (The design we proposed would have cut that time down to a few minutes)
Designing a machine to use tools designed for a human is always a bad idea. No matter how much you have invested in those tools, redesigning them to be used by a machine will always be cheaper.
It has more to do with the economy generated by Microsoft.
You mean the software monoculture created by the Microsoft monopoly? I thought competition was supposed to be good for the economy...
Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft.
I think about this regularly. It is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with.
The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.
Every one of the vendors you list also ships Linux systems.
They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.
See above
Dell has already tried shipping Linux systems and it failed miserably for them.
They were essentially unadvertised, nearly impossible to find, and ludicrously priced. I doubt their failure has much to do with Linux itself. However, even though Dell has given up on Linux desktops, they still sell Linux servers.
Other companies have met limited success (what is VA Linux doing now?).
I've met limited success selling support contracts for the Linux systems I've installed, also. It's pretty hard to sell support when your product never breaks.
Think about how many Windows admins there are for every Unix admin.
Think about how many more admins are needed for a given number of Windows systems as compared to a given number of Unix systems.
The fact that Windows needs more admins than Unix is not a selling point.
What about all the software houses that write software (some of which would undoubtedly be used in Peru) for Windows not because Windows is the best, but simply because it's the most ubiquitous?
They will have to change their strategy if they want to compete in the Peruvian market, then, won't they?
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.
The proposed legislation doesn't say "don't buy Microsoft". There is nothing in the bill which prevents Microsoft from competing. The only thing preventing Microsoft from competing in the market outlined by the bill is Microsoft's unwillingness to provide the service the bill requires.
Can Dell make Linux-capable boxen? Sure. Is it in their best interests on a limited scale? History has shown no.
IIRC, Dell stated that they would be willing to provide Linux desktop computers to people who were willing to place large orders when they discontinued their desktop Linux line, and I can't imagine a government purchasing computers any other way.
In truth, with the possible exception of some modems or printers, Dell already sells Linux-capable boxen, they siply don't choose, except in certain circumstances, to actually install Linux on them.
Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy
The whole point of the bill is that the government will not be beholden to a songle source for it's software needs, and will be able to become self-sufficient in that regard if necessary. This is a non-arguement backed up by flamebait (which is why I didn't include the rest of the paragraph).
THe ambassador is not saying, "Accept Microsoft." He's saying "Don't shut out consideration of Microsoft by mandating an open-source regulation." Let free trade and market forces ("Is it a better product?" or "Is it a better deal?" or "Is it better service-wise?") determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
It is a technology based decision; the bill favors technologies which are interoperable, easily modified, and not subject to proprietary format lock-in and arbitrary forced upgrade. Again, the only thing keeping Microsoft from competing in such a market is Microsoft.
That's a capitalist mentality, true, but it's one that's allowed the growth of open-source in this country in some areas, and the last time I checked, Peru had an economy based on capitalism.
Here's a capitalist mentality for you: if a company refuses to offer what the customer wants, why should the customer even consider buying from that company?
It is an explicit endorsement of Open Source. MS is perfectly welcome to compete under the law, they just have to stop being whiny bitches and open their source code to public scrutiny. There is no requirement (AFAIK) that it be under an official open source license, so they can use their own "look but don't touch" style license if they want to.
The object of the bill is not necessarily to save money, it is to ensure the integrity and security of government data and prevent proprietary file format lock-in.
He didn't back out because he didn't have the balls, he backed out because performing the demonstration would expose HP, not just himself, to criminal liability. Endangering others, especially those who support you in doing good works, for the sake of a public stunt is decidedly not cool, whether those "others" are helpless children or giant corporations.
If the fact that he deals with his employer honorably makes him a sellout and suspect in your mind, then you are an idiot. Any true leader must be able to consider the consequences his actions will have for his allies, and act responsibly if that ally isn't prepared to accept that risk. Perens has demonstrated that ability, and it only increases my respect for him.
You don't know how HP "Persuaded" him to back down, maybe they threatened his job?
Actually I do, because I read the article.
He is giving the presentation as an agent of HP. If he breaks the law as an agent of HP, HP is liable for damages. It's pretty clear that Perens has no problem getting himself in trouble, but when it was clear that his actions would get someone else in trouble also, he chose to back down rather than expose that essentially innocent third party to liability.
This is the right and honorable thing to do, and only increases my respect for the man.
I would love to be using Mozilla right now, as I think it's much better than IE. Unfortunately, I have only a 2GB HDD in my work system, and it's mostly filled with work stuff.
If you are truely so offended, then I humbly suggest that you volunteer to perform the DMCA violating presentation as an introduction to Mr Perens' presentation.
In other words: take up the banner or shut the hell up. The last thing we need is more armchair revolutionary grumbling.
Alternatively, you could take a little time to educate yourself about the actual reason HP asked him not to do the demonstration, and perhaps even explore the actual reason he agreed. I suspect an old adage regarding picking ones battles applies here.
I am guessing that the remote-as is related to the Remote Assistant feature in XP, but I've had no luck on finding any technical information about brvread via a Google search.
A Google search of my own for "brvread" reveals no information in the first few pages other than that port 1054 is assigned to brvread for either TCP or UDP.
Not only have you proved that you are a karma whore by racing to be the first to post a bunch of Google hits based on only the headline of the article; you have also utterly failed to answer the actual question, since searching within the results of your search for "brvread" returns nothing! Not even a single hit!
You have, of course, been moderated up, because none of the moderators bothered to read the article either. It is fortunate for you that you did not engage in any cut and paste, as that would have revealed to all your total lack of understanding of the question posed.
I was going to post the same thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I don't mind the ads, I realize/. needs the money they bring in, but when ads start interfering with the content it's a real problem that needs to be addressed.
I agree that the term "tech boom" implies that lots of technical people were needed to accomplish lots of technical work. If that was in fact the case (and I strongly suspect it was, though I wasn't really involved personally), and all these technical people were working tons of overtime because not enough of them could be found to do all the work that needed to be done, then I would agree that it was a tech boom.
However, the post I was responding to painted a different picture. It suggested a situation where all these tech companies simply had tons of money to burn, so they hired all these people at $70k/year to work 1.5 hour days. That isn't a tech boom, it's a bunch of morons throwing money away. In that situation it makes sense that when the Venture Capital ran out, the company would either fold or realize that, "Hey, we could make some of these people work real work days and fire the rest. That would reduce our headcount by like 80%."
My comment was in no way related to the advancement of or value to society of the work done, simply a question of how much work was actually being done compared to time and money thrown away on toys and playtime, looking at it from an employers perspective.
jobs were everywhere and if you had any credentials at all, companies would fight about who got to give you $70k/yr to do 1.5hrs of work a day.
Wow, just think how much easier it would have been for them to just make everybody work a full day! Was this a tech boom, or just a waste-time-and-money boom?
So in other words, if the ??AA has a caching proxy server, and the kiddie has some reason to believe that someone accessed his work from inside the ??AA network, they are fair game.
The best part is that he's right. If the court decides that, for whatever reason, the law doesn't protect him, then he's got a legitimate Constutional arguement against it based on the 14th Amendment. It's beautiful.
No it isn't. Copyright creates the idea of piracy. If there is no copyright there is no piracy. It cannot exist on it's own. Simple fact, easy to grasp.
They didn't buy the code?, then it is not theirs to use, simple fact, easy to grasp.
This is only true because copyright law says it is true. If there is no copyright law, then this is not true. Simple fact, easy to grasp.
What if all of Europe agreed to allow free copying of all non-european software?, i mean, it's not that anybody important would be harmed, so why bother paying?.
First, China does almost exactly what you describe, for pretty much the same reasons you describe.
Second, it has nothiong to do with someone being harmed or not. If all of Europe decided to allow free copying of non-European software, doing so would not be piracy! Why? Because the legal framework of copyright in Europe would allow it, in this case explicitely. Piracy is illegal copying. If the copying you are doing is not illegal, it isn't piracy. Simple fact, easy to grasp.
That's exactly what I said. That's why I put the 'dis' in parentheses. Personally, I have only used them for allowing access, but I put the (dis) in there to avoid a response saying "You know you can use them to prevent access, too."
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that breasts sell product, especially in the geek market.
Case in point: a few months ago Dragon had the gall to put a scantily clad male on their cover. The next month the fan mail apparently was replaced by hate mail from homophobes who claimed they couldn't even bring themselves to buy that issue because of the cover. In subsequent months they got plenty of mail in support of that cover, but the fact remains that the ltest issue is dutifully decorated by a pair of Dark Elf females dressed for a night out at the local S+M club.
My point is that they are selling to a particular market, and that market, right or wrong, as a deep-seated fascination with breasts. Gaming magazines focus on E3 booth babes for the same reason Sports Illustrated has a swimsuit issue; because it grabs the attention of their target audience and sell magazines.
Personally, I agree with you. I would love to see the maturity level of the PC gaming community raised a few notches, but the sad fact is that the industry will continue to put out what sells. For the record, I know a lot more women who are interested in Sports Illustrated than [random PC Gaming mag], and I only know one woman who reads Dragon.
I guess what it comes down to is you aren't their target market. You should let them know that by not buying their magazines.
I'm not missing the point at all. Based on my experience, designing a robot to use human tools is an incredibly bad idea, and the result will be expensive and error-prone.
Again, based on my experience, it will still be cheaper to have 2 sets of tools, one set for humans and one set for robots. A machine-centric toolset and a machine to use that toolset, even in a "general purpose" situation, will always be much cheaper and easier to design, and the result will be more reliable, than trying to design a machine to use human tools.
Your hand is an incredibly complex system,.I had no idea how complex it was until I spent a year automating tasks previously done by hand. Replicating the tasks that can be done with human hands is hard enough, having to replicate the "grasping qualities"[1] increases the difficulty by at least an order of magnitude, and not just in design but in fabrication as well.
You are correct that the robot in my example only had to do one task, and it's a damn good thing! The fact that the task was so simple only lends further support to my arguement. Every additional task increases the difficulty and reduces the efficiency and reliability of the design. Multiply that by the increased difficulty and reduced efficiency and reliability inherent in designing around human tools, and you will quickly exceed the cost of designing a new machine-centric toolset. Add to that the fact that the machine-centric toolset will be considerably lighter and smaller than the human-centric one, and it totally boggles my mind that NASA is even considering their current course.
[1] meaning shape, friction, deformity, and all the other qualities a human tool is designed to take advantage of.
The type of security the bill is designed to promote has nothing to do with firmware. Firmware is in no way connected to proprietary vs open file formats and the public beng able to verify the integrity of it's data, which is what the whole debate is actually about.
If you haven't read Villanueva's letter, you should. If you have, you need to read it again. Either way, you are obviously arguing from a position of ignorance (and on more than one front, at that!) Or maybe you're just a troll and I haven't yet noticed the hook in my mouth...
The Holy War against the West wouldn't exist if we had kept our noses out of middle east politics over the last 50 years. There is no mysterious Islamic doctrine that says they must bring down America. We have brought this upon ourselves through our self-righteous foreign policy. Perhaps you should actually learn something about the situation before you start spouting off about it.
You're making no sense at all. I think you should get some sleep before you post in this thread again.
The only potential buzzword I see in there is "jingoistic", though I can't be sure since I've never actually heard a marketroid say it. "Vacuous" and "bullshit" are definately not buzzwords, though. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with their meanings?
Pull your head out of your ass!
Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not a direct response to American meddling in the Middle East? Whatever your on, I'll take 2, because that has to be some good shit!
When I was working for a company that produced custom industrial robots I dealt with a similar situation on one of my first projects.
Basically, all the machine had to do was measure and cut wire. That's a pretty simple task, and the whole thing could have been finished in a week for a few thousand dollars. For some reason, though, the customer insisted that instead of using easily replaced, sensible cutting blades designed specifically for the machine, it had to use the custom made, diagonal cutters their assemblers were using to cut the stuff by hand. The reason being that the diagonal cutters were of a special material required for the job (a medical application). Of course, we could have easily made machine blades out of the same material for about 1/20 of the cost, but the customer insisted...
The end result: the machine took almost 2 months to complete and cost almost $15,000, it requires constant re-calibration because the cutters move a tiny bit with each cut, and it takes nearly an hour to change and align the cutters when they dull. (The design we proposed would have cut that time down to a few minutes)
Designing a machine to use tools designed for a human is always a bad idea. No matter how much you have invested in those tools, redesigning them to be used by a machine will always be cheaper.
It has more to do with the economy generated by Microsoft.
You mean the software monoculture created by the Microsoft monopoly? I thought competition was supposed to be good for the economy...
Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft.
I think about this regularly. It is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with.
The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.
Every one of the vendors you list also ships Linux systems.
They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.
See above
Dell has already tried shipping Linux systems and it failed miserably for them.
They were essentially unadvertised, nearly impossible to find, and ludicrously priced. I doubt their failure has much to do with Linux itself. However, even though Dell has given up on Linux desktops, they still sell Linux servers.
Other companies have met limited success (what is VA Linux doing now?).
I've met limited success selling support contracts for the Linux systems I've installed, also. It's pretty hard to sell support when your product never breaks.
Think about how many Windows admins there are for every Unix admin.
Think about how many more admins are needed for a given number of Windows systems as compared to a given number of Unix systems.
The fact that Windows needs more admins than Unix is not a selling point.
What about all the software houses that write software (some of which would undoubtedly be used in Peru) for Windows not because Windows is the best, but simply because it's the most ubiquitous?
They will have to change their strategy if they want to compete in the Peruvian market, then, won't they?
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.
The proposed legislation doesn't say "don't buy Microsoft". There is nothing in the bill which prevents Microsoft from competing. The only thing preventing Microsoft from competing in the market outlined by the bill is Microsoft's unwillingness to provide the service the bill requires.
Can Dell make Linux-capable boxen? Sure. Is it in their best interests on a limited scale? History has shown no.
IIRC, Dell stated that they would be willing to provide Linux desktop computers to people who were willing to place large orders when they discontinued their desktop Linux line, and I can't imagine a government purchasing computers any other way.
In truth, with the possible exception of some modems or printers, Dell already sells Linux-capable boxen, they siply don't choose, except in certain circumstances, to actually install Linux on them.
Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy
The whole point of the bill is that the government will not be beholden to a songle source for it's software needs, and will be able to become self-sufficient in that regard if necessary. This is a non-arguement backed up by flamebait (which is why I didn't include the rest of the paragraph).
THe ambassador is not saying, "Accept Microsoft." He's saying "Don't shut out consideration of Microsoft by mandating an open-source regulation." Let free trade and market forces ("Is it a better product?" or "Is it a better deal?" or "Is it better service-wise?") determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
It is a technology based decision; the bill favors technologies which are interoperable, easily modified, and not subject to proprietary format lock-in and arbitrary forced upgrade. Again, the only thing keeping Microsoft from competing in such a market is Microsoft.
That's a capitalist mentality, true, but it's one that's allowed the growth of open-source in this country in some areas, and the last time I checked, Peru had an economy based on capitalism.
Here's a capitalist mentality for you: if a company refuses to offer what the customer wants, why should the customer even consider buying from that company?
It is an explicit endorsement of Open Source. MS is perfectly welcome to compete under the law, they just have to stop being whiny bitches and open their source code to public scrutiny. There is no requirement (AFAIK) that it be under an official open source license, so they can use their own "look but don't touch" style license if they want to.
The object of the bill is not necessarily to save money, it is to ensure the integrity and security of government data and prevent proprietary file format lock-in.
Yeah, I'm jealous of an idiot who started spouting off google links before he even knew what the question was.
RTFA
He didn't back out because he didn't have the balls, he backed out because performing the demonstration would expose HP, not just himself, to criminal liability. Endangering others, especially those who support you in doing good works, for the sake of a public stunt is decidedly not cool, whether those "others" are helpless children or giant corporations.
If the fact that he deals with his employer honorably makes him a sellout and suspect in your mind, then you are an idiot. Any true leader must be able to consider the consequences his actions will have for his allies, and act responsibly if that ally isn't prepared to accept that risk. Perens has demonstrated that ability, and it only increases my respect for him.
You don't know how HP "Persuaded" him to back down, maybe they threatened his job?
Actually I do, because I read the article.
He is giving the presentation as an agent of HP. If he breaks the law as an agent of HP, HP is liable for damages. It's pretty clear that Perens has no problem getting himself in trouble, but when it was clear that his actions would get someone else in trouble also, he chose to back down rather than expose that essentially innocent third party to liability.
This is the right and honorable thing to do, and only increases my respect for the man.
I would love to be using Mozilla right now, as I think it's much better than IE. Unfortunately, I have only a 2GB HDD in my work system, and it's mostly filled with work stuff.
If you are truely so offended, then I humbly suggest that you volunteer to perform the DMCA violating presentation as an introduction to Mr Perens' presentation.
In other words: take up the banner or shut the hell up. The last thing we need is more armchair revolutionary grumbling.
Alternatively, you could take a little time to educate yourself about the actual reason HP asked him not to do the demonstration, and perhaps even explore the actual reason he agreed. I suspect an old adage regarding picking ones battles applies here.
The last sentence is:
I am guessing that the remote-as is related to the Remote Assistant feature in XP, but I've had no luck on finding any technical information about brvread via a Google search.
A Google search of my own for "brvread" reveals no information in the first few pages other than that port 1054 is assigned to brvread for either TCP or UDP.
Not only have you proved that you are a karma whore by racing to be the first to post a bunch of Google hits based on only the headline of the article; you have also utterly failed to answer the actual question, since searching within the results of your search for "brvread" returns nothing! Not even a single hit!
You have, of course, been moderated up, because none of the moderators bothered to read the article either. It is fortunate for you that you did not engage in any cut and paste, as that would have revealed to all your total lack of understanding of the question posed.
I was going to post the same thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
/. needs the money they bring in, but when ads start interfering with the content it's a real problem that needs to be addressed.
I don't mind the ads, I realize
You totally misread my comment.
I agree that the term "tech boom" implies that lots of technical people were needed to accomplish lots of technical work. If that was in fact the case (and I strongly suspect it was, though I wasn't really involved personally), and all these technical people were working tons of overtime because not enough of them could be found to do all the work that needed to be done, then I would agree that it was a tech boom.
However, the post I was responding to painted a different picture. It suggested a situation where all these tech companies simply had tons of money to burn, so they hired all these people at $70k/year to work 1.5 hour days. That isn't a tech boom, it's a bunch of morons throwing money away. In that situation it makes sense that when the Venture Capital ran out, the company would either fold or realize that, "Hey, we could make some of these people work real work days and fire the rest. That would reduce our headcount by like 80%."
My comment was in no way related to the advancement of or value to society of the work done, simply a question of how much work was actually being done compared to time and money thrown away on toys and playtime, looking at it from an employers perspective.
jobs were everywhere and if you had any credentials at all, companies would fight about who got to give you $70k/yr to do 1.5hrs of work a day.
Wow, just think how much easier it would have been for them to just make everybody work a full day! Was this a tech boom, or just a waste-time-and-money boom?
So in other words, if the ??AA has a caching proxy server, and the kiddie has some reason to believe that someone accessed his work from inside the ??AA network, they are fair game.
Talk about ill-conceived!
The best part is that he's right. If the court decides that, for whatever reason, the law doesn't protect him, then he's got a legitimate Constutional arguement against it based on the 14th Amendment. It's beautiful.
The NY Times and the Washington Post don't exist on the same network.
It's called the "internet". You may have heard of it...
They call it piracy because it IS piracy.
No it isn't. Copyright creates the idea of piracy. If there is no copyright there is no piracy. It cannot exist on it's own. Simple fact, easy to grasp.
They didn't buy the code?, then it is not theirs to use, simple fact, easy to grasp.
This is only true because copyright law says it is true. If there is no copyright law, then this is not true. Simple fact, easy to grasp.
What if all of Europe agreed to allow free copying of all non-european software?, i mean, it's not that anybody important would be harmed, so why bother paying?.
First, China does almost exactly what you describe, for pretty much the same reasons you describe.
Second, it has nothiong to do with someone being harmed or not. If all of Europe decided to allow free copying of non-European software, doing so would not be piracy! Why? Because the legal framework of copyright in Europe would allow it, in this case explicitely. Piracy is illegal copying. If the copying you are doing is not illegal, it isn't piracy. Simple fact, easy to grasp.
That's exactly what I said. That's why I put the 'dis' in parentheses. Personally, I have only used them for allowing access, but I put the (dis) in there to avoid a response saying "You know you can use them to prevent access, too."
"software to connect information, people, systems and services."
Unfortunately, this definition doesn't help at all. Pretty much all internet-based software does this.
Pretty much all software does this. He could have said "Software that fetches, decodes, and executes." and been just as helpful.