I personally don't feel this is true, pirated software has *always* been readily available to well-informed computer users, but somehow, software manufacturers still manage to make healthy profits.
And yet Looking Glass Studios went out of business... I blame this entirely on two things. One, piracy; and two, those bastardly publishers who steal all your profits away!
The article talks a lot about actors, musicians, cultural icons becoming rich as a 20th century phenomenon, and it is completely right. This century, there has been this great boom of expectations to become rich by being an icon. Never before in history have people associated fast cars or the easy life with such people. In fact, I think we're foolish to make these people rich. Look at the salaries of movie stars, baseball players, rock musicians. They are all very high. You pay $11 to go see a mvie (at least where I live) which will gross in the hundreds of millions, but only cost in the tens of millions to make... if you think about it, they could spread the weath, and reduce the cost of your ticket.
Now what's been the point of that little rant? Not much, other than to say that most industries are lagging behind the times, especially cultural ones. In these times of the net, we expect things to be very cheap, if not free. These cultural icons have got to figure out how to get on the 'net to stay alive. Now, they might take a bit of a pay hit, but if that bothers them, well they can relax with the thought that I'm a starving student, while they make millions.
Now if industries don't figure out how to get online, they're going to go the way of the dodo. Darwinism is still applicable to modern society, just on a smaller time span. If you don't evolve, you're extinct.
Another problem we have in our society is the laws. Governements just can't seem to keep up with the 'net either. This is a problem because now we need to do a rewrite of entire sections of our lawbooks. Why? It's the same problem that we've had for years with software piracy: the laws aren't equipped to deal with the 'net.
Take the Sherman Act for example. It was barely able to deal with M$, and that's not even over yet. At least they had a tangible product. Can it deal with the next monopoly that's totally online? Can our other laws deal well with net problems such as hacking, fraud, etc? No. They can't. And this is going to be a serious problem in the next ten years as more and more of our world becomes hi-tech, and the rest doesn't.
This is the one and only train leaving for the high-tech world. You had better get on.
Isn't it about time people realize that if Havard, or whoever is at the blunt of slashdot complaints, didn't want to cover them, they didn't have to? It was requested, and they thought it might be a good idea.
No... note that the spokesperson for Harvard said: "[but we were] asked in a way that we couldn't say no." That says bullying to me....
Can't we just all grow up? You didn't like it when your parents made you share, now you don't have to, but you're telling other people they have to share, you're just like your parents.
Maybe one doesn't like sharing, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Maybe Mom and Dad were right...
And why should we expect that Intel shouldn't want an "exclusive" event? Really, it's a tradeoff. I'm sure that Intel (or any other company for that matter) isn't donating money sheerly out of the kindness of its collective heart. There are strings attached.
Is the entire University part of said event? All of it? That really doesn't make that much sense to me...
For example, Intuit used to (perhaps still does) donate Quicken software to high schools for use in personal finance classes. Not just because Intuit wants high school students to have balanced checkbooks (yeah, right), but because when those same students need to buy software, they will buy the software they already know.
Yes, but note that Intel didn't donate a bunch of processors to the school. (well maybe they did but it wasn't mentionned anywhere). You'll note that Intuit, Corel, and other companies who donate software don't actually ask for anything in return, they just assume it will happen (which it will). Had Intel donated a few (a lab) of PCs, then more people would use them and consequently buy them in the future... Note that this is not what happened. Intel is using a M$-like bullying tatic. Bad. Bad Intel. Stop being mean.
Same for Intel, they are doing it partly for charity, mostly for good PR.
And WHOA BOY did they fail! Gotta laugh at this one just a bit. A Yahoo story like this isn't going to get more Intel PCs bought... perhaps more AMD or Transmeta....
But remember... Harvard is an independant institution, and some departments (Harvard Science Center - media-services department, 90% Mac based) probably couldn't function when placed under that restriction (just think what would happen if your company/school wasn't allowed to use 9/10 computer s for a few days).
I know here at my University there are classes that just wouldn't run... because the entire thing takes place in the Mac labs. That's bad for students. Some of them may behind as is, and being FORCED to have unproductive classes ain't helping. This is education, remember?
Here in Canada, we're just really starting to see this sort of thing happen. At McGill University, they now have "The Coke Lounge", simply because the U doesn't get enough funding to pay for improvments it desperately needs.
I've also heard of cases of companies sponsoring departments.... so long as they research <insert name of competitive edge here>
How long will it be before educational institutions are simply an extention of corporate ones?
If people are smart, never! Yes! Increase funding! Increase taxes! (It's for a good cause and you all know it):)
Slashdot Mirror
A bit of a personal rant here...
I personally don't feel this is true, pirated software has *always* been readily available to well-informed computer users, but somehow, software manufacturers still manage to make healthy profits.
And yet Looking Glass Studios went out of business... I blame this entirely on two things. One, piracy; and two, those bastardly publishers who steal all your profits away!
*ahem*
Thank you.
The article talks a lot about actors, musicians, cultural icons becoming rich as a 20th century phenomenon, and it is completely right. This century, there has been this great boom of expectations to become rich by being an icon. Never before in history have people associated fast cars or the easy life with such people. In fact, I think we're foolish to make these people rich. Look at the salaries of movie stars, baseball players, rock musicians. They are all very high. You pay $11 to go see a mvie (at least where I live) which will gross in the hundreds of millions, but only cost in the tens of millions to make... if you think about it, they could spread the weath, and reduce the cost of your ticket.
Now what's been the point of that little rant? Not much, other than to say that most industries are lagging behind the times, especially cultural ones. In these times of the net, we expect things to be very cheap, if not free. These cultural icons have got to figure out how to get on the 'net to stay alive. Now, they might take a bit of a pay hit, but if that bothers them, well they can relax with the thought that I'm a starving student, while they make millions.
Now if industries don't figure out how to get online, they're going to go the way of the dodo. Darwinism is still applicable to modern society, just on a smaller time span. If you don't evolve, you're extinct.
Another problem we have in our society is the laws. Governements just can't seem to keep up with the 'net either. This is a problem because now we need to do a rewrite of entire sections of our lawbooks. Why? It's the same problem that we've had for years with software piracy: the laws aren't equipped to deal with the 'net.
Take the Sherman Act for example. It was barely able to deal with M$, and that's not even over yet. At least they had a tangible product. Can it deal with the next monopoly that's totally online? Can our other laws deal well with net problems such as hacking, fraud, etc? No. They can't. And this is going to be a serious problem in the next ten years as more and more of our world becomes hi-tech, and the rest doesn't.
This is the one and only train leaving for the high-tech world. You had better get on.
Isn't it about time people realize that if Havard, or whoever is at the blunt of slashdot complaints, didn't want to cover them, they didn't have to? It was requested, and they thought it might be a good idea.
No... note that the spokesperson for Harvard said: "[but we were] asked in a way that we couldn't say no." That says bullying to me....
Can't we just all grow up? You didn't like it when your parents made you share, now you don't have to, but you're telling other people they have to share, you're just like your parents.
Maybe one doesn't like sharing, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Maybe Mom and Dad were right...
And why should we expect that Intel shouldn't want an "exclusive" event? Really, it's a tradeoff. I'm sure that Intel (or any other company for that matter) isn't donating money sheerly out of the kindness of its collective heart. There are strings attached.
Is the entire University part of said event? All of it? That really doesn't make that much sense to me...
For example, Intuit used to (perhaps still does) donate Quicken software to high schools for use in personal finance classes. Not just because Intuit wants high school students to have balanced checkbooks (yeah, right), but because when those same students need to buy software, they will buy the software they already know.
Yes, but note that Intel didn't donate a bunch of processors to the school. (well maybe they did but it wasn't mentionned anywhere). You'll note that Intuit, Corel, and other companies who donate software don't actually ask for anything in return, they just assume it will happen (which it will). Had Intel donated a few (a lab) of PCs, then more people would use them and consequently buy them in the future... Note that this is not what happened. Intel is using a M$-like bullying tatic. Bad. Bad Intel. Stop being mean.
Same for Intel, they are doing it partly for charity, mostly for good PR.
And WHOA BOY did they fail! Gotta laugh at this one just a bit. A Yahoo story like this isn't going to get more Intel PCs bought... perhaps more AMD or Transmeta....
But remember... Harvard is an independant institution, and some departments (Harvard Science Center - media-services department, 90% Mac based) probably couldn't function when placed under that restriction (just think what would happen if your company/school wasn't allowed to use 9/10 computer s for a few days).
I know here at my University there are classes that just wouldn't run... because the entire thing takes place in the Mac labs. That's bad for students. Some of them may behind as is, and being FORCED to have unproductive classes ain't helping. This is education, remember?
Here in Canada, we're just really starting to see this sort of thing happen. At McGill University, they now have "The Coke Lounge", simply because the U doesn't get enough funding to pay for improvments it desperately needs.
:)
I've also heard of cases of companies sponsoring departments.... so long as they research <insert name of competitive edge here>
How long will it be before educational institutions are simply an extention of corporate ones?
If people are smart, never! Yes! Increase funding! Increase taxes! (It's for a good cause and you all know it)