Let's say Ted Developer has created a software program, let's call that X. He is selling X for $50. Now, let's assume Joe Random is considering buying X. If he decides to buy it, Ted has $50 more money. If not, it doesn't affect the money Ted has at all.
After that initial decision, whether Joe simply does without X, infringes on Ted's copyright or obtains something else will not change the amount of money Ted has.
From Ted's perspective, it doesn't matter whether Joe simply doesn't buy, commits copyright infringment or gets something else, he will still not get any money from Joe. The only thing that really differs if Joe chose to infringe on Ted's copyright is that Ted now has a legal club to threaten Joe with.
None of the things Joe can choose to do will reduce the amount of money our developer has. That's the reason it's called copyright infringment and not stealing. Stealing means that someone else no longer has what was stolen and Ted certainly still has his program.
Now, your argument was that by making a copy of X, you're in effect stealing Ted's rewards for his time. However, If Joe doesn't buy X, Ted's rewards are the same whether or not Joe infringes on his copyright or not. Exactly what does Ted lose if Joe infringes on his copyright?
Half not employed full-time? I wonder how many of those are by choice. Could very well be that many don't even want to work full time when they can earn enough for a living working part time.
About the Housing costs, on such a miniscule timescale, they will fluctuate in response to demand and supply. This, however, has nothing to do with the work required to actually provide housing. Sellers are just (ab)using the increased demand to increase prices. Solution, move somewhere with lower costs. The demand has shifted to your area from somewhere else.
Yes, that's exactly the way it should be. This way the needs of users get the weight they should instead of marketing concerns.
even an organization with only 160 computers could afford to hire someone in addition to the sysadmin, at least part time, to customize open source software they use. It wouldn't cost much more than the "Microsoft tax" they need to pay every 3 years. With a part time coder, it'd be cheaper and quite propably still better than if they had to rely on a commercial entity like microsoft.
Now, consider if every organization had one. They would be working on open source code and sharing the results with each other. Why? Because more users means bugs are found faster and as a result they get a stable system faster.
If you think about this enough, you'll likely notice that once a certain critical mass is reached, the roles of sysadmin and customizer will be merged. The result? The "Microsoft tax" has vanished.
The need for commercial support would also be reduced significantly because the sysadmins would naturally be in contact with each other and mostly get answers to problems very fast. It's a very unlikely situation that you're the first or the only one who has bumped into a specific problem.
Anyway, if you can point out flaws in my thinking, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.
Sounds a lot like you were considering creating a closed source program that you only distribute as binaries. Good, we don't need those, stay away.
This problem isn't really a problem if you go with open source approach. If it's open source and the program has enough users, it'll not only fix this problem, but also improve the overall quality of the program.
If the source is out there, someone will provide binaries for whatever platforms there are.
51% have only one developer... so that means 49% have at least 2 developers.
so, if we conservatively assume that every one of the 49% of projects with more than one developer has just two, it'd mean that 51/(51*1+49*2) = 34.2% of developers work alone.
Considering that 34.2% is more than the actual figure, I'd say geeks do work together a lot more than not.
We well be using paper until wearable computers are commonplace. I mean wearable computers that track your body movements and get their input from that. Retinal scan displays are propably required too.
Paper will go away once you've got something that's even more easy to use. Why bother finding pen and paper when you can pick up a virtual piece of paper wherever you are:)
and what do you need money for if you can create anything you want with the fabber? My guess is that energy will replace money as a way of paying for things when molecular level fabbers become reality.
The first Star Trek replicator would cost loads of money, yes. However, this first replicator could then be used to create the second replicator and that for third and so on...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, non-paying customers strengthen the reputation... as long as the software is good. If it isn't good, then the opposite is true.
:)
Makes you wonder about all the companies crying foul at infringment...
I'm a bit amazed at your way of doing math.
Let's say Ted Developer has created a software program, let's call that X. He is selling X for $50. Now, let's assume Joe Random is considering buying X. If he decides to buy it, Ted has $50 more money. If not, it doesn't affect the money Ted has at all.
After that initial decision, whether Joe simply does without X, infringes on Ted's copyright or obtains something else will not change the amount of money Ted has.
From Ted's perspective, it doesn't matter whether Joe simply doesn't buy, commits copyright infringment or gets something else, he will still not get any money from Joe. The only thing that really differs if Joe chose to infringe on Ted's copyright is that Ted now has a legal club to threaten Joe with.
None of the things Joe can choose to do will reduce the amount of money our developer has. That's the reason it's called copyright infringment and not stealing. Stealing means that someone else no longer has what was stolen and Ted certainly still has his program.
Now, your argument was that by making a copy of X, you're in effect stealing Ted's rewards for his time. However, If Joe doesn't buy X, Ted's rewards are the same whether or not Joe infringes on his copyright or not. Exactly what does Ted lose if Joe infringes on his copyright?
sounds like it's been quite a while since you tried it.
it still eats quite a bit of memory, but I haven't seen a big java program that doesn't.
Half not employed full-time? I wonder how many of those are by choice. Could very well be that many don't even want to work full time when they can earn enough for a living working part time.
About the Housing costs, on such a miniscule timescale, they will fluctuate in response to demand and supply. This, however, has nothing to do with the work required to actually provide housing. Sellers are just (ab)using the increased demand to increase prices. Solution, move somewhere with lower costs. The demand has shifted to your area from somewhere else.
Yes, that's exactly the way it should be. This way the needs of users get the weight they should instead of marketing concerns.
even an organization with only 160 computers could afford to hire someone in addition to the sysadmin, at least part time, to customize open source software they use. It wouldn't cost much more than the "Microsoft tax" they need to pay every 3 years. With a part time coder, it'd be cheaper and quite propably still better than if they had to rely on a commercial entity like microsoft.
Now, consider if every organization had one. They would be working on open source code and sharing the results with each other. Why? Because more users means bugs are found faster and as a result they get a stable system faster.
If you think about this enough, you'll likely notice that once a certain critical mass is reached, the roles of sysadmin and customizer will be merged. The result? The "Microsoft tax" has vanished.
The need for commercial support would also be reduced significantly because the sysadmins would naturally be in contact with each other and mostly get answers to problems very fast. It's a very unlikely situation that you're the first or the only one who has bumped into a specific problem.
Anyway, if you can point out flaws in my thinking, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.
Sounds a lot like you were considering creating a closed source program that you only distribute as binaries. Good, we don't need those, stay away.
This problem isn't really a problem if you go with open source approach. If it's open source and the program has enough users, it'll not only fix this problem, but also improve the overall quality of the program.
If the source is out there, someone will provide binaries for whatever platforms there are.
51% have only one developer... so that means 49% have at least 2 developers.
so, if we conservatively assume that every one of the 49% of projects with more than one developer has just two, it'd mean that 51/(51*1+49*2) = 34.2% of developers work alone.
Considering that 34.2% is more than the actual figure, I'd say geeks do work together a lot more than not.
We well be using paper until wearable computers are commonplace. I mean wearable computers that track your body movements and get their input from that. Retinal scan displays are propably required too.
:)
Paper will go away once you've got something that's even more easy to use. Why bother finding pen and paper when you can pick up a virtual piece of paper wherever you are
What almost everyone seems to be forgetting here is that good encryption is indistinguishable from randomly generated stream of bytes.
Just wait until someone creates a worm that spreads around and starts sending random streams around and see how easy the criminals are to spot then.
and what do you need money for if you can create anything you want with the fabber? My guess is that energy will replace money as a way of paying for things when molecular level fabbers become reality.
The first Star Trek replicator would cost loads of money, yes. However, this first replicator could then be used to create the second replicator and that for third and so on...
It'd effectively make the cost pretty low.
Does war need to be declared before it is war? I would call it a war if two groups started fighting.
Record companies are no longer needed. It's time for them to go.
- blight