Easy. You're looking at the license violations as the same situation because they are both license violations. Claiming that the reasoning shouldn't matter because they are both license violations. Fair enough. That's your opinion. However, my point was that the reasoning matters. People aren't angry about a violation of the GPL simply because it's a license violation, they are angry because they believe it is wrong for software released to the community for free use of code etc, to be locked up afterwards into a proprietary state.
In the case of copyright infringement such as "piracy" people violate the license for all kinds of reasons. But I doubt you'll find someone who would be legitimately angry about a violation to the GPL, who pirates just for the hell of it or just to get stuff for free. It's not the same situation when you take rationale into account. "Try before you buy", "civil disobedience", etc. There's no cognitive dissonance and no hypocrisy here. Just a desire for what a merging of what is "right" and what is "legal". You want to look at it in black in white, that they are both simply violations of a license, then fine. Go ahead. But it's not an argument that's going to have any weight nor be helpful to a meaningful discussion.
Student discounts are generally still too high. Photoshop costs around $650 (give or take) the Student Discount is still a whopping $250 or so. Very rarely will a student be able to afford that
As for suggesting other affordable solutions. I can only speak for myself, I do. The problem of course is a vicious cycle, people pirate software to learn it because that is the current software in use by the industry. The industry uses the software because that is where the labor availability is. The labor availability is because everyone went and learned that software because it's what the industry uses.....and so on.
There is outcry at every GPL violation because someone else's work has been appropriated, and they get nothing for all the time they put into making it.
Someone doesn't understand the GPL. You can't violate it simply by appropriating something and not paying the author. Whether or not payment is accepted is not part of the GPL you can or you can't. A violation of the GPL has nothing to do with compensating the person who developed it, it's about keeping the work open. So yea, let's be angry about the license violation involving keeping software open and let's not care about the license violation that deprives the public domain via tremendously long copyright lengths.
many infringers may not have bought the software if they had to pay, but some sales and some income is undoubtably lost.
You ignore the sales that are gained though.
Consider this: College kid pirates Adobe Photoshop. Learns how to use it, becomes a graphic designer who uses photoshop professionally and purchases a copy for use professionally. That is a sale that was created by piracy. Or maybe the kid who pirated Photoshop ends up talking to friends about it who switch from FooBar image editing software to Photoshop. Then when both become professionals and actually have money, not only might they purchase copies, but they may end up at a company who has to buy licenses for Photoshop (the more likely scenario) and thus they got the job based on having the software available to learn it and generated the sale of licenses.
This is a very real phenomenon that companies like Adobe bank on. Why do you think Adobe doesn't go around locking down their software with ever increasing DRM? Or why Microsoft has only made small gestures at the guise of piracy and spokespeople have even stated that they really mostly ignore it. Because the more people using their software (especially people who would not have purchased it anyways) the more people who end up purchasing their software down the line.
they only say it will work if it uses the easy-bake mix
Apple only says that iOS devices work with software that comes from their App store and they make the rules for their App store.
Nice sidestep. I also stated that the manufacturer of an easy-bake oven doesn't make it impossible to bake things that aren't using easy-bake mix. They just don't guarantee it will work. Apple doesn't even guarantee that software from their App store will work (how can they?) yet they purposefully make it unable to load applications that are not from the Apple app store.
No really. If the agreement with the publishers is that they get to keep 30% of the sale, Apple's new demand is 30% of the sale, then it doesn't matter what your price is, you get nothing.
You're assuming that they had a 70% profit margin, which most publisher's will not give a distributor at all. Publishers won't give a distributor even close to a 30% cut of sales. It just doesn't happen, which means when Apple suddenly and without warning decides to take a 30% cut, they go from making a minimal but survivable profit to negatives. The fault here lies with both Apple for changing their terms like they did and with the publishers for absurd practices where they are dictating such small profit margins for distributing something that, as you say, requires no raw materials to manufacture. Yet the only person who gets crunched here is the distributor, not the publisher and not Apple.
Yet the reason why an easy-bake oven can only bake stuff that uses the easy-bake mix is a technical limitation. Not a policy of the company that made it. You're welcome to try to bake anything you want, they only say it will work if it uses the easy-bake mix. The manufacturer didn't put in a lock to prevent it where you have to prove you are using the easy-bake mix.
The only thing that prevents the iPad and iPhone from allowing you to install applications outside of their store is Apple's lock that states you can't do it. There is no technical reason why it can't be done.
Not necessarily, many geeks who lack social skills just don't see the point in the social niceties consciously decide not to waste their time with them. They gradually learn the situations where they are necessary (after high school...and perhaps college) but for the most part much of interpersonal relations and social skills make no logical or rational sense and thus are confusing to someone who thinks in a nearly purely rational sense. This leads to your stereotypical geek, yes, but is not an uncommon thing.
It's interesting that you would choose those things as things that we "don't learn in school"
Why was it a bad thing that Hitler and Stalin put lots of people in concentration camps?
If you didn't learn this in school and couldn't figure it out yourself, then there is a serious problem with you. As far as I know both situations are covered in most US history classes, at the very least WWII and Hitler's history is. A child who doesn't correlate mass murder with BAD is not exactly a good thing.
Why did metric get invented, and why do we use it over imperials?
Every science class should teach this (i know my first science classes did way back when). The problem is that the US is too stubborn to change from Imperial to Metric outside of the scientific fields. That's not a problem with the "education" so much as a problem with the people in charge.
What was the founding fathers prime ideals in stating the US constitution?
It would be tough to teach this to anyone with any consistency considering that a vast majority of people well versed in history don't even agree on this. Opinions range from attempting to start a Christian nation to a Secular nation to just a nation of freedoms and rights outside of tyranny, and beyond. Majority of the theories or ideas for the "ideals" of the founding fathers have no evidentiary basis either.
Instead we learn the boring stuff, like birth and death of Napoleon, when the American civil war was.
Ah, so history outside of the things YOU deem important is boring? How is the American civil war not something that is important to know?
We are taught to consume, not criticize, at a time when we need to start criticizing the most
On this I can agree. The problem is schooling right now in the US teaches a culture of memorization. If you memorize everything you need to know and pass the test you did well and are called "smart". There is not enough teaching of thought processes, problem solving skills, concepts and ideas.
Actually the entry-level jobs do not require multi-year experience. They just require experience. Period. The problem is the people who skirt by in school and think that just having the degree is enough for a job which isn't true. Especially when it comes to software development, you had to have either done some interesting side projects in your free time, or get an internship while you're in school, or a combination of both. The academic setting just isn't enough real-world experience. You can still get a job without it (if you're really good) but that experience is vital to a good developer.
imagine slashdot with all comments at score 0. Would you want to stick around?
The point here is the experience and idea of doing something useful, it doesn't have to be an idea that flocks millions of users or even thousands, hell it doesn't have to bring ANY users. Just the fact that it's a complex application that was created.
and watch the abuser power-cycle his modem for a new IP address.
Various interactive calculators such as bank interest/mortgage/retirement calculators, web-based games, news aggregation, a comment system using anonymous comments (creating a useful spam filter is an exceptional exercise in complex programming. Abuses can be banned by IP address.), etc.
Granted, yes, these applications can be made more interesting and useful with the addition of user accounts, storing preferences, data, etc. but it is by no means necessary for creating an engaging, useful, and complex application.
Conversing with someone about a previous project is much more informative than looking at some code. Who knows how representative that code is of the person? Who cares what the code even says? The point is concepts and passion. You can tell a lot about a person's ethic and passion by how they talk about a project. You can tell how much they actually understood what they wrote by how they explain it. It's just more informative and a better indicator of their performance.
Actually you have two good projects there that you can talk about though, if they are sufficiently complex.
Any competent interviewer will ask you not only about the project but what was good and bad about it. They would ask you what you thought you could have done better. So to say there are "good bits and bad bits" is fine. They don't expect perfection as you were just a student. They expect the interest enough to go and do something. If you don't have time outside the classroom to do anything, then you should have something sufficiently complex that you did in the classroom that took up that time so you couldn't do anything outside the classroom.
Then again, you got an EE degree and are complaining that nothing you did during your degree program could be used for a career in software development, which is just kinda stupid. If you wanted to work in software, why didn't you at least do a minor in CS/Software Engineering/etc?
At the very least, if you're not doing a BS/MS program why couldn't you do something during the summer? Whether it was a personal project or get an internship or something. There's no reason to not have something outside the classroom to talk about. I mention a BS/MS program, because usually there are summer classes involved in getting the BS and MS together in a shorter time period. But then, you should come out with several very complex projects that you've done during the course of your schooling that you can point to.
If you have 10 years of experience, then I doubt you are who is being talked about by TFA. Point to the company you work for, the apps you work on and talk about the administrating you perform for the servers. There is no need to directly show any application or server you administrate during an interview. If you are competent at all you can describe what you did on the applications you worked on, how they work (in a general description) and what technical knowledge and skills you had to employ to perform your job.
If you are only paying $60/yr for the occasional voice call, then you do not have the typical cell phone bill. Which is anywhere from $30 - $60/mo.
Also, as stated before, there is no need to have an application with user accounts. Many web applications that are complex and useful have no need for user accounts.
You assume that there was some organized group within Anonymous who did the hack, which is unprovable. In fact, I would posit that it was not a group inside Anonymous because they have proven, good or bad, that things done in the name of Anonymous tend to be bragged about and otherwise mentioned and thrown in the face of whoever it was perpetrated against, while this was not.
I believe the point GP was trying to make was that Stupidity != fault. In the case of the naked girl stripping naked and running around inside a men's prison, I would call the girl an idiot, I'd say she was stupid, I would in no way claim that it's her fault that someone decided to take advantage of the situation. Stupidity is not the same as responsibility.
Anonymous is a random bunch of PEOPLE some are kids in it for the joy-ride others are obviously adults with their own motivation, and everything in between. As has been said, they are literally anonymous so positing who they might be as individuals is just an exercise in futility. The guiding message that is publicly put forth under the name of Anonymous is one that most would identify with as a good thing, free speech, transparency, removing corruption, etc. Sure organized events may or may not fancy your liking as the right approach. Claiming they do this with the consent of any government is laughable considering the arrests that have been made (such as over the DDoS's).
There's nothing stopping the Feds from shutting down 4chan
It would just get mirrored outside their jurisdiction. While you could probably tie 4chan to distribution of child porn, and even that would be difficult due to the evidence disappearing quickly due to the nature of the site, I highly doubt any connection could be made to any kind of "organized crime" at least not one that would hold up in court.
Notice that the US is making no attempt to charge Assange?
Notice that the US has no grounds on which to charge him with anything.
The subtle manipulation of 4chan by the US government to target governments or foreign corporations gives the US government plausible deniability in the "cyberwar."
Uhm....you DO know what 4chan is right? The vast majority have nothing to do with Anonymous and are immature kids who think they are on the edge of a culture war and rebellion who have no aspirations of "fighting for freedom" or whatever.
Please tell me I just fed a troll....otherwise my faith in humanity just took a nose-dive lower than it's usual amount.
"communism has never been practiced" != "communism doesn't work"
It means that the attempts people made for "communism" wasn't actually communism but their interpretation of it which, because of the changes and differences from what communism theoretically is, it didn't work. You can't definitively say that communism doesn't work until it is actually attempted.
Note also the argument that it was illegal to show his long-from birth certificate was a silly one from the get-go. Since Obama has miraculously managed to get a waiver to show it, there's no reason to suspect he couldn't have gotten a waiver in 2008....
If you did some research you'd realize that the Department of Health in Hawaii made a special exception for him in the interest of stopping the tide of requests they kept getting to release it. By policy, the Department of Health will not release the long-form birth certificate, even to the person in question. This was a special circumstance, over the last three years it has been independently verified by the governor and others that it was on file, yet the birthers refused to believe it.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy. You're looking at the license violations as the same situation because they are both license violations. Claiming that the reasoning shouldn't matter because they are both license violations. Fair enough. That's your opinion. However, my point was that the reasoning matters. People aren't angry about a violation of the GPL simply because it's a license violation, they are angry because they believe it is wrong for software released to the community for free use of code etc, to be locked up afterwards into a proprietary state.
In the case of copyright infringement such as "piracy" people violate the license for all kinds of reasons. But I doubt you'll find someone who would be legitimately angry about a violation to the GPL, who pirates just for the hell of it or just to get stuff for free. It's not the same situation when you take rationale into account. "Try before you buy", "civil disobedience", etc. There's no cognitive dissonance and no hypocrisy here. Just a desire for what a merging of what is "right" and what is "legal". You want to look at it in black in white, that they are both simply violations of a license, then fine. Go ahead. But it's not an argument that's going to have any weight nor be helpful to a meaningful discussion.
Student discounts are generally still too high. Photoshop costs around $650 (give or take) the Student Discount is still a whopping $250 or so. Very rarely will a student be able to afford that
As for suggesting other affordable solutions. I can only speak for myself, I do. The problem of course is a vicious cycle, people pirate software to learn it because that is the current software in use by the industry. The industry uses the software because that is where the labor availability is. The labor availability is because everyone went and learned that software because it's what the industry uses.....and so on.
This ^
There is outcry at every GPL violation because someone else's work has been appropriated, and they get nothing for all the time they put into making it.
Someone doesn't understand the GPL. You can't violate it simply by appropriating something and not paying the author. Whether or not payment is accepted is not part of the GPL you can or you can't. A violation of the GPL has nothing to do with compensating the person who developed it, it's about keeping the work open. So yea, let's be angry about the license violation involving keeping software open and let's not care about the license violation that deprives the public domain via tremendously long copyright lengths.
many infringers may not have bought the software if they had to pay, but some sales and some income is undoubtably lost.
You ignore the sales that are gained though.
Consider this: College kid pirates Adobe Photoshop. Learns how to use it, becomes a graphic designer who uses photoshop professionally and purchases a copy for use professionally. That is a sale that was created by piracy. Or maybe the kid who pirated Photoshop ends up talking to friends about it who switch from FooBar image editing software to Photoshop. Then when both become professionals and actually have money, not only might they purchase copies, but they may end up at a company who has to buy licenses for Photoshop (the more likely scenario) and thus they got the job based on having the software available to learn it and generated the sale of licenses.
This is a very real phenomenon that companies like Adobe bank on. Why do you think Adobe doesn't go around locking down their software with ever increasing DRM? Or why Microsoft has only made small gestures at the guise of piracy and spokespeople have even stated that they really mostly ignore it. Because the more people using their software (especially people who would not have purchased it anyways) the more people who end up purchasing their software down the line.
they only say it will work if it uses the easy-bake mix
Apple only says that iOS devices work with software that comes from their App store and they make the rules for their App store.
Nice sidestep. I also stated that the manufacturer of an easy-bake oven doesn't make it impossible to bake things that aren't using easy-bake mix. They just don't guarantee it will work. Apple doesn't even guarantee that software from their App store will work (how can they?) yet they purposefully make it unable to load applications that are not from the Apple app store.
No really. If the agreement with the publishers is that they get to keep 30% of the sale, Apple's new demand is 30% of the sale, then it doesn't matter what your price is, you get nothing.
You're assuming that they had a 70% profit margin, which most publisher's will not give a distributor at all. Publishers won't give a distributor even close to a 30% cut of sales. It just doesn't happen, which means when Apple suddenly and without warning decides to take a 30% cut, they go from making a minimal but survivable profit to negatives. The fault here lies with both Apple for changing their terms like they did and with the publishers for absurd practices where they are dictating such small profit margins for distributing something that, as you say, requires no raw materials to manufacture. Yet the only person who gets crunched here is the distributor, not the publisher and not Apple.
Yet the reason why an easy-bake oven can only bake stuff that uses the easy-bake mix is a technical limitation. Not a policy of the company that made it. You're welcome to try to bake anything you want, they only say it will work if it uses the easy-bake mix. The manufacturer didn't put in a lock to prevent it where you have to prove you are using the easy-bake mix.
The only thing that prevents the iPad and iPhone from allowing you to install applications outside of their store is Apple's lock that states you can't do it. There is no technical reason why it can't be done.
Not necessarily, many geeks who lack social skills just don't see the point in the social niceties consciously decide not to waste their time with them. They gradually learn the situations where they are necessary (after high school...and perhaps college) but for the most part much of interpersonal relations and social skills make no logical or rational sense and thus are confusing to someone who thinks in a nearly purely rational sense. This leads to your stereotypical geek, yes, but is not an uncommon thing.
It's interesting that you would choose those things as things that we "don't learn in school"
Why was it a bad thing that Hitler and Stalin put lots of people in concentration camps?
If you didn't learn this in school and couldn't figure it out yourself, then there is a serious problem with you. As far as I know both situations are covered in most US history classes, at the very least WWII and Hitler's history is. A child who doesn't correlate mass murder with BAD is not exactly a good thing.
Why did metric get invented, and why do we use it over imperials?
Every science class should teach this (i know my first science classes did way back when). The problem is that the US is too stubborn to change from Imperial to Metric outside of the scientific fields. That's not a problem with the "education" so much as a problem with the people in charge.
What was the founding fathers prime ideals in stating the US constitution?
It would be tough to teach this to anyone with any consistency considering that a vast majority of people well versed in history don't even agree on this. Opinions range from attempting to start a Christian nation to a Secular nation to just a nation of freedoms and rights outside of tyranny, and beyond. Majority of the theories or ideas for the "ideals" of the founding fathers have no evidentiary basis either.
Instead we learn the boring stuff, like birth and death of Napoleon, when the American civil war was.
Ah, so history outside of the things YOU deem important is boring? How is the American civil war not something that is important to know?
We are taught to consume, not criticize, at a time when we need to start criticizing the most
On this I can agree. The problem is schooling right now in the US teaches a culture of memorization. If you memorize everything you need to know and pass the test you did well and are called "smart". There is not enough teaching of thought processes, problem solving skills, concepts and ideas.
Actually the entry-level jobs do not require multi-year experience. They just require experience. Period. The problem is the people who skirt by in school and think that just having the degree is enough for a job which isn't true. Especially when it comes to software development, you had to have either done some interesting side projects in your free time, or get an internship while you're in school, or a combination of both. The academic setting just isn't enough real-world experience. You can still get a job without it (if you're really good) but that experience is vital to a good developer.
imagine slashdot with all comments at score 0. Would you want to stick around?
The point here is the experience and idea of doing something useful, it doesn't have to be an idea that flocks millions of users or even thousands, hell it doesn't have to bring ANY users. Just the fact that it's a complex application that was created.
and watch the abuser power-cycle his modem for a new IP address.
See above.
Various interactive calculators such as bank interest/mortgage/retirement calculators, web-based games, news aggregation, a comment system using anonymous comments (creating a useful spam filter is an exceptional exercise in complex programming. Abuses can be banned by IP address.), etc.
Granted, yes, these applications can be made more interesting and useful with the addition of user accounts, storing preferences, data, etc. but it is by no means necessary for creating an engaging, useful, and complex application.
^ This
Conversing with someone about a previous project is much more informative than looking at some code. Who knows how representative that code is of the person? Who cares what the code even says? The point is concepts and passion. You can tell a lot about a person's ethic and passion by how they talk about a project. You can tell how much they actually understood what they wrote by how they explain it. It's just more informative and a better indicator of their performance.
Actually you have two good projects there that you can talk about though, if they are sufficiently complex.
Any competent interviewer will ask you not only about the project but what was good and bad about it. They would ask you what you thought you could have done better. So to say there are "good bits and bad bits" is fine. They don't expect perfection as you were just a student. They expect the interest enough to go and do something. If you don't have time outside the classroom to do anything, then you should have something sufficiently complex that you did in the classroom that took up that time so you couldn't do anything outside the classroom.
Then again, you got an EE degree and are complaining that nothing you did during your degree program could be used for a career in software development, which is just kinda stupid. If you wanted to work in software, why didn't you at least do a minor in CS/Software Engineering/etc?
At the very least, if you're not doing a BS/MS program why couldn't you do something during the summer? Whether it was a personal project or get an internship or something. There's no reason to not have something outside the classroom to talk about. I mention a BS/MS program, because usually there are summer classes involved in getting the BS and MS together in a shorter time period. But then, you should come out with several very complex projects that you've done during the course of your schooling that you can point to.
If you have 10 years of experience, then I doubt you are who is being talked about by TFA. Point to the company you work for, the apps you work on and talk about the administrating you perform for the servers. There is no need to directly show any application or server you administrate during an interview. If you are competent at all you can describe what you did on the applications you worked on, how they work (in a general description) and what technical knowledge and skills you had to employ to perform your job.
If you are only paying $60/yr for the occasional voice call, then you do not have the typical cell phone bill. Which is anywhere from $30 - $60/mo.
Also, as stated before, there is no need to have an application with user accounts. Many web applications that are complex and useful have no need for user accounts.
You assume that there was some organized group within Anonymous who did the hack, which is unprovable. In fact, I would posit that it was not a group inside Anonymous because they have proven, good or bad, that things done in the name of Anonymous tend to be bragged about and otherwise mentioned and thrown in the face of whoever it was perpetrated against, while this was not.
Predictable? Maybe. Can be controlled? Uh.....yea...sure....
I believe the point GP was trying to make was that Stupidity != fault. In the case of the naked girl stripping naked and running around inside a men's prison, I would call the girl an idiot, I'd say she was stupid, I would in no way claim that it's her fault that someone decided to take advantage of the situation. Stupidity is not the same as responsibility.
Wow. Exceptionally laughable really.
Anonymous is a random bunch of PEOPLE some are kids in it for the joy-ride others are obviously adults with their own motivation, and everything in between. As has been said, they are literally anonymous so positing who they might be as individuals is just an exercise in futility. The guiding message that is publicly put forth under the name of Anonymous is one that most would identify with as a good thing, free speech, transparency, removing corruption, etc. Sure organized events may or may not fancy your liking as the right approach. Claiming they do this with the consent of any government is laughable considering the arrests that have been made (such as over the DDoS's).
There's nothing stopping the Feds from shutting down 4chan
It would just get mirrored outside their jurisdiction. While you could probably tie 4chan to distribution of child porn, and even that would be difficult due to the evidence disappearing quickly due to the nature of the site, I highly doubt any connection could be made to any kind of "organized crime" at least not one that would hold up in court.
Notice that the US is making no attempt to charge Assange?
Notice that the US has no grounds on which to charge him with anything.
The subtle manipulation of 4chan by the US government to target governments or foreign corporations gives the US government plausible deniability in the "cyberwar."
Uhm....you DO know what 4chan is right? The vast majority have nothing to do with Anonymous and are immature kids who think they are on the edge of a culture war and rebellion who have no aspirations of "fighting for freedom" or whatever.
Please tell me I just fed a troll....otherwise my faith in humanity just took a nose-dive lower than it's usual amount.
If the copyright has expired, then it is public domain and not copyrighted any longer.
"communism has never been practiced" != "communism doesn't work"
It means that the attempts people made for "communism" wasn't actually communism but their interpretation of it which, because of the changes and differences from what communism theoretically is, it didn't work. You can't definitively say that communism doesn't work until it is actually attempted.
Note also the argument that it was illegal to show his long-from birth certificate was a silly one from the get-go. Since Obama has miraculously managed to get a waiver to show it, there's no reason to suspect he couldn't have gotten a waiver in 2008....
If you did some research you'd realize that the Department of Health in Hawaii made a special exception for him in the interest of stopping the tide of requests they kept getting to release it. By policy, the Department of Health will not release the long-form birth certificate, even to the person in question. This was a special circumstance, over the last three years it has been independently verified by the governor and others that it was on file, yet the birthers refused to believe it.