OK, unfair/discriminatory/whatever, sure. But "ripping others off"? Did they break the speed limit or didn't they?
If a speed limit is unreasonably low, it is perfectly reasonable to call the strict enforcement of it "ripping off".
A ticket when you break the speed limit may be annoying, but having your family wiped out by (e.g.) a drunk driver or a trucker pushing his alertness limits or a speeding NJ Governor, now THAT's a problem.
These too are problems. They don't happen as often, fortunately. And when they do, they (mostly) happen on streets, rather than highways. It is not rare, that the only other car on a long stretch of lonely highway is the policeman in the bushes... Hence the "bane of highway travel".
Of course, it gets complicated if you try to write legislation that codifies something as subjective as car quality and driver experience.
I think, this can be done by having extra car-inspections and driver-exams to qualify for, say 30% over the posted limit. The inspections will be more rigorous (checking breaks, tires, possibly alignment) and the exams will require proficiency in accident avoidance and reaction time — on a special track, with simulated pedestrians and swerving other "cars". These will be expensive to set up, so those wishing to undergo them will have to pay substantial extra... Those, who pass will have the extra qualifications added to their licenses and their cars' license plates.
The roads are common property, the rules for sharing them are the rules we agreed to abide by when we got our licenses
This argument would make sense, if there was a choice. There is not — my "agreement" was thus under duress... Roads are a (natural) monopoly — of the government. It was great trick, that the government pulled on us all, when the access to public roads was declared a privilege to be granted (or withdrawn) by the executive, rather than a right not to be taken away without a proper trial. Although in many jurisdictions traffic cases are heard by a real judge, a major city like New York conveniently employs "traffic judges" — municipal employees, who are part of the executive branch. And other locales can do the same on a whim...
and there really aren't many times when one simply must drive that fast (hint: they usually involve sirens and flashing lights).
There aren't many times, when one must use a car at all — biking will get you there too, much safer, healthier, and better for the environment... Yet my right to drive as I please stems from the holy Pursuit of Happiness. It shall not be impeded, unless it interferes with someone else's right to same. And it does not — the artificially low speed limits, I brought up, line up the towns' coffers without improving safety.
This is why I advocate automated application of speeding fines, which can be setup immediately on all toll roads/bridges. The distances between exits are well known, and the time of entering and exiting is recorded with the payment... Such automatic application will, actually, get to everybody, including the upstanding citizens, who attend city council meetings and will result in very quick increases of the speed limits everywhere applicable.
You complaining that they created a product to achieve some goals they needed and let everyone use it.
I'm not complaining about TCP/IP at all. I'm glad and proud, that America's government (unlike most of the rest of the world), when developing cool technology for itself, keeps an eye on letting others use it. Besides Internet, GPS comes to mind.
This has nothing to do with the argument, however. EugeneK tried to ridicule my point, by equating the government's development of TCP/IP (for itself) with Boston's municipal WiFi service. Those were not comparable and Eugene is still searching for a better example — too little a man to admit, he was wrong:-)...
If Boston developed the WiFi standards and protocols (for itself) and then decided to let others use it, I'd have no problems. But they took an existing technology and decided to compete with commercial service providers — killing or severely hampering them. Development never entered their minds — it was all about "providing service to the poor" (you know, those legions of disadvantaged, who can't afford Internet access, but can afford a computer) Socialist crap, along with the usual "think of the children" demagoguery.
It would be nice and easy to do, indeed: you push a button when you drive past the trap and the code, along with your current coordinates gets broadcast.
Unfortunately, cops will start broadcasting these everywhere themselves — similar to how they put fake traffic cameras and other scarecrows. The justification will be, that it causes people to slow down. The (truly desired) effect will be, that people will start ignoring these signals as noise.
Speed-laws are not reasonable
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you have an issue with the speed limits in your town, please contact your local elected officials. Have you ever been to a city council meeting?
In too many localities police will usually let a local resident off with a warning while ripping others off. This keeps local residents (who attend council meetings) content, and brings easy revenue (people from afar are very unlikely to challenge the tickets in local court) to the town. This selective enforcement gets documented occasionally and is a real bane of highway travel.
NJ's Governor Corzine just had a nasty accident, because his driver (a State trooper, no less) was going 91 in a 65 mph zone (Governor's vehicle can only do that in an "emergency"). The governor will take months to recover, because the moron was not wearing his seatbelt. Neither the hypocrite trooper (who had a similar accident a few years ago), nor the hypocrite governor are expected to be punished by law, although tens of thousands drivers are fined in NJ for the same (and lesser) offenses every year — most of them without causing an accident.
The speed laws are not reasonable — they take neither car's age and quality nor the driver's experience and health into consideration. What's too fast for an inexperienced 17- or half-blind 70-year-old driving a Buick is unreasonably slow for a healthy middle-aged driver driving a BMW...
Because of this, the citizens of boston cannot vote to ban content due to the first amendment.
You are absolutely right — our democracy is better than that of the ancient Athens, because laws (beginning with the Constitution) protect the minority, however unpopular a particular group/individual may be at any given time.
However, if the citizens of Boston agree with the ban, they will not pressure Boston government over it, and the blocked site will have to sue to get unblocked... It will be an expensive and lengthy process — without guarantee of winning at the end, because this is hardly the first time an ISP is censoring (for better or worse).
In most cases, however, one can simply switch to another ISP — an option, a government-sponsored service is killing...
Doesn't recognize the democratically elected palistinian government as being legitimate
We do! That's the whole point. This is why we boycott all Palestinians (for democractically choosing the terrorism-using government).
Recognize Pakistan's military dictatorship as legitimate.
How would non-recognition look like?
Places domestic travel bans on its citizens.
What? How come I have not noticed?
Limits travel to other countries (as mentioned above)
Part of economic embargo. If businesses can't trade with the enemy (remember Bush's grandfather getting busted for trading with German firms? The "Bush is a Nazi" crowd made a lot out of it), why should people be able to?
Spies on its own people without probable cause, (echlon/carnivore/whatever its called now, RFID ? )
Nowhere near as Castro. Come on, are you really equating the two?
Violates its own constitution (count the ways)
And gets spanked every time — unlike Castro.
No longer has a clear separation from the judicial system (sacking bush unfriendly judges)
You are confused, dear. Not judges, but prosecutors — political appointees, who are part of the Executive Branch. Clinton sacked over 90 of them, when he took over, for example...
Highest imprisonment rate of any country per head of population
Yeah, the sentences are way too long. I'll grant you this one... USSR (Castro's ex-master) had the maximum prison term of 15 years. Few people survived it, however... I strongly suspect, Castro's system is the same.
The government of some states kill their own people (capital punishment)
Dear, you are comparing with Castro's Cuba... I note, that you don't mention the "per head" statistics here — a remarkable omission on your part.
Face it, "land of the free" is nothing more than a propaganda term.
We are in the freest land available on this planet. It could be better, but it is, easily, the best there is. There are plenty of other free Democratic countries, who are nice to their own, but they aren't nearly as welcoming to immigrants. US is the best.
If you would expect RMS to keep silent about his views on political freedom
I'd expect RMS to respect US laws and not go on an embargo-busting trip to Cuba, and not do Castro's evil regime any favors. But, I suspect, you own a Che Guevarra T-shirt. Your final resting place ought to be on a lamp-post, and you would not understand...
is still answerable to the citizens of boston as we live in a democratic society.
And what if the majority of the citizens of Boston really do hate the blocked site(s)? Then those, who want to access it, are screwed by the same flaw of Democracy, that killed Socrates... And even if citizens of Boston do wise up and force the block to be removed, tell me, what's easier — organize the citizens to protest and petition the government, or switch to a competing service provider?
Municipal WiFi was and remains a profoundly stupid idea, because it effectively blocks the competition through government subsidy. At least, with roads and other infrastructure it could be argued, that we can't have competing ones simply due to the lack of space (although Tokyo manages to have competing subway lines, somehow). But WiFi networks? Please — can put 10 different access point on the same pole...
The illiberal Socialist Boston is showing us all the worst of it. The supposed market failure was used to justify government's encroaching into an area, where it should not be allowed. You — the fans of "Municipal WiFi" — have made this bed. Now sleep in it.
Market is not infallible. The libertarian argument is, it is less fallible than the vast majority of mechanisms designed to regulate it.
Even with the "sacred" things like FDA, it is unclear, if the number of lives preserved by the agency's weeding out bad medicines is greater, than that lost because of the immense regulatory burden faced by the pharmaceuticals.
We have a Market Failure here. Ergo, we need computer security controlled by the government — let's expand the Department of Homeland Security's duties one more time... Or, because we, the critics of the free market, hate the DHS (mostly because it was not us introducing it), let's create an entirely different entity instead.
Pre-emptive flamebaiting...
Yes, there is a government agency looking into computer security, but their role, so far, has been advisory. An alleged "market failure" is usually interpreted into need for more regulation by short-minded illiberals...
Although Montana's valiant stand is commendable, the battle over "Real ID" is long lost. The current license databases are reachable by police from other States already, and even the security guards undergo training to recognize drivers licenses (of States and of many countries).
Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh).
The only (rational) argument against "Real ID" is that such single database can be abused. Well, guess what, a collection of easily accessible databases with a unified interface is just as easily abused — and we already have it. A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car — in 1997...
It may be "clouding the issue" for some, but I find the intellectual property metaphor to be quite fitting. And yes, unlike patents for inventions, which should expire as they describe an idea, intellectual property on particular implementations (Windows Vista, or the Sleeping Beauty cartoon) may (or should) be perpetually valuable.
Of all people, Slashdotters are supposed to appreciate it especially, but, I guess, most people here don't produce anything of value.
Piracy may be different from theft in some respects, but from the ethics point of view, it is indistinguishable. Yet most people here would not even agree, that piracy is unethical at all — so I have a lot less disagreement with you.
No, piracy is different from and worth than vandalism, from which no one gains. Pirates do benefit — and greatly — I know one personally. Their gain — at the expense of the victim — is what makes it similar to theft. So similar, it is equivalent from the ethics point of view.
I am not depriving them of my money. Who knows if I would have bought it rather than pirate it?
I know — because you bought a pirated copy (at a discount) instead of the genuine one. Maybe, you wouldn't have bought it, if it was only only available at full price. So the amount the pirate stole from the software maker is somewhere in between the pirate's price and the maker's price. But the pirate's price is the minimum amount stolen.
It's non-exclusionary, giving me a copy does not mean you have any less, so it is fundamentally different from other forms of property.
Yes, once created, intellectual property is trivial to duplicate. So what? It is still grossly unethical to do so without the creator's permission. Unethical, because it is equvalent to stealing from him/her, as it deprives them of money.
No not stealing. There is very specific lawys regaurding copyright infringement.
Just because someone 'pirates' a copy, does not mean that person would have bought it anyways, and the copyright holder had nothing removed from there inventory.
Pirates pirate to profit. They sell CDs with cracked software. Every CD bought from them, is a CD not bought from the software maker. The actual amount stolen from the maker is somewhere between the pirate's price (which the buyer did pay) and the maker's price (which they buyer would or would not have paid, had it not been for the pirate). We can argue about the exact amount, but there is no doubt, that the software-maker is deprived of some money by the pirate.
If I pirate vista, home many copies wuill be missing from MS inventory? none. Only a lost opportunity to sell a copy.
Stealing is depriving someone of something. When you copy something, you are not depriving the owner of their copy.
When a pirate copies Microsoft's CD and sells the copy, he deprives Microsoft of their money (in the amount somewhere in between the pirate's price and the Microsoft's price). That's equivalent to theft — a crime everywhere.
Buying from such pirates is equivalent to buying stolen property — a crime everywhere too.
They really are the lowest of the low in the legal profession. They can't make much money as lawyers, they don't have qualifications to become real judges. So they get some politician's favor (often somebody's relative) and become small-court "judges" or even "Clerk Magistrates".
We had to fight a Small Court battle in Massachusetts recently — you would not believe the amount of gross incompetence, ill will, and lazyness we observed in just one case...
The purchaser of the software, having agreed to the conditions of the sale, breeches his/her contract when he/she copies that software and gives it away.
And sells it to millions of others depriving the maker of a lot of money — stealing...
That is why software piracy is not theft, and should not be a crime.
By this logic, buying stolen property is not theft, and should not be a crime. Yet it is, and rightly so. Buying a cracked Vista CD is no ethically different from buying an in-dash GPS unit, for example, freshly torn out from some sucker's vehicle.
It is just that we find it easier to identify with the victim in the latter case, than in the former.
What's the dare? You are patently wrong, justifying a grossly unethical behavior.
Had it been a poor musician, for example, dying of hunger, while everybody is playing his tune without giving him a dime, you'd be full of sympathy.
But since this is a large corporation (which is paid by honest folks), stealing from it is Ok? No, of course not — it is just as wrong, as copying a song without the author's permission.
I suspect, you — as well as most of the Slashdot crowd — simply never produced anything worth stealing... And yet, all of you would work yourself up into lather over somebody violating GPL.
When a consumer is forced to purchase Vista with their new PC, it is the purchaser who is deprived of value.
Why are you changing the subject? We are talking about retail purchases of Vista... In any case, one disagreeing with the seller is not justified stealing the seller's wares.
I'm willing to bet that even in China not too many people are even pirating Vista, never mind buying it...
"Not too many" means "only a few millions" in China. Are you sincerely stating here, that 244 licenses really is the number of Chinese users of Vista, give or take a few pirates?
If you do, then you are a doofus, and the discussion is over. And if you agree, that the number of users is, at least, 100 times the number of licenses sold, then we are talking about, at least, 23756 pirates (thieves)...
Let's hear the Slashdot crowd claim, once again, how software piracy is not really theft, and how it does not deprive the software-maker of anything of value.
And, of course, how the software-maker's steps to prevent the piracy are unethical, while the piracy itself is not.
Theory is important, no doubt, but all theory and very little practice makes Jack a very, very, very bad programmer.
That's true, of course, but you missed my point. I was saying, that going from "all theory" to practice is relatively quick, while the other way around is next to impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
If a speed limit is unreasonably low, it is perfectly reasonable to call the strict enforcement of it "ripping off".
These too are problems. They don't happen as often, fortunately. And when they do, they (mostly) happen on streets, rather than highways. It is not rare, that the only other car on a long stretch of lonely highway is the policeman in the bushes... Hence the "bane of highway travel".
I think, this can be done by having extra car-inspections and driver-exams to qualify for, say 30% over the posted limit. The inspections will be more rigorous (checking breaks, tires, possibly alignment) and the exams will require proficiency in accident avoidance and reaction time — on a special track, with simulated pedestrians and swerving other "cars". These will be expensive to set up, so those wishing to undergo them will have to pay substantial extra... Those, who pass will have the extra qualifications added to their licenses and their cars' license plates.
This argument would make sense, if there was a choice. There is not — my "agreement" was thus under duress... Roads are a (natural) monopoly — of the government. It was great trick, that the government pulled on us all, when the access to public roads was declared a privilege to be granted (or withdrawn) by the executive, rather than a right not to be taken away without a proper trial. Although in many jurisdictions traffic cases are heard by a real judge, a major city like New York conveniently employs "traffic judges" — municipal employees, who are part of the executive branch. And other locales can do the same on a whim...
There aren't many times, when one must use a car at all — biking will get you there too, much safer, healthier, and better for the environment... Yet my right to drive as I please stems from the holy Pursuit of Happiness. It shall not be impeded, unless it interferes with someone else's right to same. And it does not — the artificially low speed limits, I brought up, line up the towns' coffers without improving safety.
This is why I advocate automated application of speeding fines, which can be setup immediately on all toll roads/bridges. The distances between exits are well known, and the time of entering and exiting is recorded with the payment... Such automatic application will, actually, get to everybody, including the upstanding citizens, who attend city council meetings and will result in very quick increases of the speed limits everywhere applicable.
I'm not complaining about TCP/IP at all. I'm glad and proud, that America's government (unlike most of the rest of the world), when developing cool technology for itself, keeps an eye on letting others use it. Besides Internet, GPS comes to mind.
This has nothing to do with the argument, however. EugeneK tried to ridicule my point, by equating the government's development of TCP/IP (for itself) with Boston's municipal WiFi service. Those were not comparable and Eugene is still searching for a better example — too little a man to admit, he was wrong :-) ...
If Boston developed the WiFi standards and protocols (for itself) and then decided to let others use it, I'd have no problems. But they took an existing technology and decided to compete with commercial service providers — killing or severely hampering them. Development never entered their minds — it was all about "providing service to the poor" (you know, those legions of disadvantaged, who can't afford Internet access, but can afford a computer) Socialist crap, along with the usual "think of the children" demagoguery.
It would be nice and easy to do, indeed: you push a button when you drive past the trap and the code, along with your current coordinates gets broadcast.
Unfortunately, cops will start broadcasting these everywhere themselves — similar to how they put fake traffic cameras and other scarecrows. The justification will be, that it causes people to slow down. The (truly desired) effect will be, that people will start ignoring these signals as noise.
In too many localities police will usually let a local resident off with a warning while ripping others off. This keeps local residents (who attend council meetings) content, and brings easy revenue (people from afar are very unlikely to challenge the tickets in local court) to the town. This selective enforcement gets documented occasionally and is a real bane of highway travel.
NJ's Governor Corzine just had a nasty accident, because his driver (a State trooper, no less) was going 91 in a 65 mph zone (Governor's vehicle can only do that in an "emergency"). The governor will take months to recover, because the moron was not wearing his seatbelt. Neither the hypocrite trooper (who had a similar accident a few years ago), nor the hypocrite governor are expected to be punished by law, although tens of thousands drivers are fined in NJ for the same (and lesser) offenses every year — most of them without causing an accident.
The speed laws are not reasonable — they take neither car's age and quality nor the driver's experience and health into consideration. What's too fast for an inexperienced 17- or half-blind 70-year-old driving a Buick is unreasonably slow for a healthy middle-aged driver driving a BMW...
You are absolutely right — our democracy is better than that of the ancient Athens, because laws (beginning with the Constitution) protect the minority, however unpopular a particular group/individual may be at any given time.
However, if the citizens of Boston agree with the ban, they will not pressure Boston government over it, and the blocked site will have to sue to get unblocked... It will be an expensive and lengthy process — without guarantee of winning at the end, because this is hardly the first time an ISP is censoring (for better or worse).
In most cases, however, one can simply switch to another ISP — an option, a government-sponsored service is killing...
The Kook of the Month [mind your eyes at that site] award ought to be revived...
BS. Developing standards (TCP/IP, 110V) is completely different from providing services. And you know it.
"Insightful" my behind — find a better example, or admit, there aren't any.
We are in the freest land available on this planet. It could be better, but it is, easily, the best there is. There are plenty of other free Democratic countries, who are nice to their own, but they aren't nearly as welcoming to immigrants. US is the best.
I'd expect RMS to respect US laws and not go on an embargo-busting trip to Cuba, and not do Castro's evil regime any favors. But, I suspect, you own a Che Guevarra T-shirt. Your final resting place ought to be on a lamp-post, and you would not understand...
And what if the majority of the citizens of Boston really do hate the blocked site(s)? Then those, who want to access it, are screwed by the same flaw of Democracy, that killed Socrates... And even if citizens of Boston do wise up and force the block to be removed, tell me, what's easier — organize the citizens to protest and petition the government, or switch to a competing service provider?
Municipal WiFi was and remains a profoundly stupid idea, because it effectively blocks the competition through government subsidy. At least, with roads and other infrastructure it could be argued, that we can't have competing ones simply due to the lack of space (although Tokyo manages to have competing subway lines, somehow). But WiFi networks? Please — can put 10 different access point on the same pole...
The illiberal Socialist Boston is showing us all the worst of it. The supposed market failure was used to justify government's encroaching into an area, where it should not be allowed. You — the fans of "Municipal WiFi" — have made this bed. Now sleep in it.
Market is not infallible. The libertarian argument is, it is less fallible than the vast majority of mechanisms designed to regulate it.
Even with the "sacred" things like FDA, it is unclear, if the number of lives preserved by the agency's weeding out bad medicines is greater, than that lost because of the immense regulatory burden faced by the pharmaceuticals.
We have a Market Failure here. Ergo, we need computer security controlled by the government — let's expand the Department of Homeland Security's duties one more time... Or, because we, the critics of the free market, hate the DHS (mostly because it was not us introducing it), let's create an entirely different entity instead.
Pre-emptive flamebaiting...
Yes, there is a government agency looking into computer security, but their role, so far, has been advisory. An alleged "market failure" is usually interpreted into need for more regulation by short-minded illiberals...
Although Montana's valiant stand is commendable, the battle over "Real ID" is long lost. The current license databases are reachable by police from other States already, and even the security guards undergo training to recognize drivers licenses (of States and of many countries).
Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh).
The only (rational) argument against "Real ID" is that such single database can be abused. Well, guess what, a collection of easily accessible databases with a unified interface is just as easily abused — and we already have it. A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car — in 1997...
May, as well, have "Real ID"...
It may be "clouding the issue" for some, but I find the intellectual property metaphor to be quite fitting. And yes, unlike patents for inventions, which should expire as they describe an idea, intellectual property on particular implementations (Windows Vista, or the Sleeping Beauty cartoon) may (or should) be perpetually valuable.
Of all people, Slashdotters are supposed to appreciate it especially, but, I guess, most people here don't produce anything of value.
Piracy may be different from theft in some respects, but from the ethics point of view, it is indistinguishable. Yet most people here would not even agree, that piracy is unethical at all — so I have a lot less disagreement with you.
No, piracy is different from and worth than vandalism, from which no one gains. Pirates do benefit — and greatly — I know one personally. Their gain — at the expense of the victim — is what makes it similar to theft. So similar, it is equivalent from the ethics point of view.
I know — because you bought a pirated copy (at a discount) instead of the genuine one. Maybe, you wouldn't have bought it, if it was only only available at full price. So the amount the pirate stole from the software maker is somewhere in between the pirate's price and the maker's price. But the pirate's price is the minimum amount stolen.
Yes, once created, intellectual property is trivial to duplicate. So what? It is still grossly unethical to do so without the creator's permission. Unethical, because it is equvalent to stealing from him/her, as it deprives them of money.
Pirates pirate to profit. They sell CDs with cracked software. Every CD bought from them, is a CD not bought from the software maker. The actual amount stolen from the maker is somewhere between the pirate's price (which the buyer did pay) and the maker's price (which they buyer would or would not have paid, had it not been for the pirate). We can argue about the exact amount, but there is no doubt, that the software-maker is deprived of some money by the pirate.
It makes no difference. None...
Informative my behind.
When a pirate copies Microsoft's CD and sells the copy, he deprives Microsoft of their money (in the amount somewhere in between the pirate's price and the Microsoft's price). That's equivalent to theft — a crime everywhere.
Buying from such pirates is equivalent to buying stolen property — a crime everywhere too.
They really are the lowest of the low in the legal profession. They can't make much money as lawyers, they don't have qualifications to become real judges. So they get some politician's favor (often somebody's relative) and become small-court "judges" or even "Clerk Magistrates".
We had to fight a Small Court battle in Massachusetts recently — you would not believe the amount of gross incompetence, ill will, and lazyness we observed in just one case...
And sells it to millions of others depriving the maker of a lot of money — stealing...
By this logic, buying stolen property is not theft, and should not be a crime. Yet it is, and rightly so. Buying a cracked Vista CD is no ethically different from buying an in-dash GPS unit, for example, freshly torn out from some sucker's vehicle.
It is just that we find it easier to identify with the victim in the latter case, than in the former.
Nope. Only if you are using McDonald's intellectual property against its will.
Insightful my behind. Next...
What's the dare? You are patently wrong, justifying a grossly unethical behavior.
Had it been a poor musician, for example, dying of hunger, while everybody is playing his tune without giving him a dime, you'd be full of sympathy.
But since this is a large corporation (which is paid by honest folks), stealing from it is Ok? No, of course not — it is just as wrong, as copying a song without the author's permission.
I suspect, you — as well as most of the Slashdot crowd — simply never produced anything worth stealing... And yet, all of you would work yourself up into lather over somebody violating GPL.
Why are you changing the subject? We are talking about retail purchases of Vista... In any case, one disagreeing with the seller is not justified stealing the seller's wares.
"Not too many" means "only a few millions" in China. Are you sincerely stating here, that 244 licenses really is the number of Chinese users of Vista, give or take a few pirates?
If you do, then you are a doofus, and the discussion is over. And if you agree, that the number of users is, at least, 100 times the number of licenses sold, then we are talking about, at least, 23756 pirates (thieves)...
Let's hear the Slashdot crowd claim, once again, how software piracy is not really theft, and how it does not deprive the software-maker of anything of value.
And, of course, how the software-maker's steps to prevent the piracy are unethical, while the piracy itself is not.
I would not be surprised either — promises to "cut the red tape" and reduce the regulatory burden is part of the reason I vote Republican...
That's true, of course, but you missed my point. I was saying, that going from "all theory" to practice is relatively quick, while the other way around is next to impossible.