The answer is to walk away. Civil disobedience is one thing when simply not dealing with the other person is not an issue.
It's ok. I understand unfettered, childish greed. Just sad to see so much of it from people capable of summoning together enough brain cells to handle a login and password.
There is no moral basis on which his or your thoughts on the matter can hang that doesn't eventually lead to distributism.
So what's your suggestion, that nobody bother to enforce the law at all?
When it's him breaking it, of course!
None of these people have a consistent, rational, moral argument in favor of piracy. It always boils down to greedy little shits. Hell, I've had plenty of pirated software on computers over the years. Know why? I'm a greedy little shit too. Difference being I'm not afraid to admit it.
(Truth be told, I have FAR less than I did while younger. Just deleted CS5 the other day, figuring I can use Gimp, iPhoto, and Pixelmator.)
Yes, this agreement is formalized in any number of ways. There is the EULA that ones agrees to upon installation. The primary method is exchanging small green bits of paper for the game at a game shop (or various digital analogs.)
What cheekyjohnson misses over and over and over again is that the artist has created something. Suppose it is a painting. Part of the fact that he owns that painting for his very own is that he has the right to keep it hidden in the attic. Or he can share it with people. He decides that he will share it and let people take a look at it, but only under his terms, namely that he demands a quarter to view it. For 50 cents he will give one and only one customer a copy. Otherwise, it is HIS creation to keep locked in the attic.
Basically, cheekyjohnson has zero respect for the fruits of a person's labor. The logical endpoint of his train of 'logic' would be the most absurd exaggerations of communism. He unjustly enriches himself at the expense of others and follows this tortured scheme of thinking to find some moral underpinning upon which he can claim he did good. Yet I would bet good money that he has not once written a letter (not an email, not a fax, not a phone call) to his representatives, senators, and president (or analogs if not a US citizen) asking that changes be made for the 'broken system' he bemoans.
Boy, that's some quality reading comprehension there.
First, I never said that people make rational decisions about what they buy. I said they buy what they want. That doesn't address the rationality of the decision.
Why advertisements? To create brand and product awareness.
You know, it's funny. You accuse me of thinking of people as 'the unenlightened masses', yet you are the one arguing that a fancy jingle and a 30 second spot on TV is enough to get someone to buy something deleterious to them. Who really has the lower opinion of their fellow man?
It's sterling analysis like this that will keep you droning away in a cubicle or perhaps slaving away for some pittance as a shopkeep. Your lack of insight and taste for sour grapes will keep you mired in the quagmire for a long time to come.
The reason Linux excels in the server room is that server room geeks identified their needs and created a product. The reason that iPads sell is that Steve Jobs identified a niche and had a product created. Pure and simple. Damned few people buy something that they don't want to, and once someone gets over the age of about 5, it's very hard to convince them to want something against their better interests. Scratch that, after having tried to get a kid to eat veggies, it's even younger than that.
The amazing thing is that people can't just let it go. Given how FEW people have smartphones and iPads/tablets, there is HUGE potential for growth and even less chance that the market will become dominated by a single player for long like desktops in the 90's.
Yeah, you and much of the Slashdot crowd don't really understand marketing. It seems that 'marketing' is equated with 'advertising'. Not in the least. Apple is actually a very good at marketing, but not in the limited way some seem to understand it. Apple didn't 'create' the market for the iPad, they discovered it. Big difference. Once found, they created a product that would appeal to that market. Not as simple as a PDA, not as unwieldy and complex as a laptop. Then they told people about it.
If Apple succeeds 'just' because of marketing and if marketing is so simple, how come geeks haven't crowdsourced the problem of getting Linux adopted by the masses?
Answer: Apple succeeds due to more than advertising, and marketing is harder than you'll admit.
(BTW, lame mod on you. Misinformed? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Troll? No.)
I won't reference your signature since you are speaking of your personal experiences, but more information may make your point more interesting. I work in government and see none of the attitude and thinking that you are observing. Federal, FWIW. Non DoD. Are you just in a firm or two? Size, location, industry? Old management? And are they really saying this outright?
Your comment seems a bit incredulous, which is probably why so many people are questioning it.
Because my crippled old bones cannot take the abuse from the desktop replacement laptops. In addition, my bloodflow is so poor from years of binging on Doritos that it cannot carry away the heat put off by these computing devices.
Christ, does anybody on Slashdot understand that there are use cases other than their own and that what suits them may not suit another person?
Having used a Mac on and off since 1987, I've used a fair number of apps. Not all of them. But plenty. I can say without a doubt, I wouldn't for an instant want to spend 99 cents on a desktop or phone application programmed by someone who thinks a Mac is "a fairly expensive computer you abhor". The apps are substandard in ways that matter to me. If that's the tax that keeps you out of that market, so be it.
BTW, why wouldn't I just sample said woman myself and make my own decision?
It came from linear extrapolation of a set of figures taken at a key time:
1) the iPhone 4 was launching in a few months, so sales of the 3G and 3GS slumped 2) Verizon was doing a 2 for 1 deal on android handsets during that same period, so every purchase was counting double 3) the Android numbers then went above the iPhone numbers in that quarter. 4) people drew a straight line graph upwards based on those figures 5) profit?
5) "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continues... AAY!"
No reason that fandroids of iOS fanboys should look at the other as 'the enemy'. Plenty of room for both. They keep each other moving. *shrug*
Slashdot Mirror
One for work, one for bank, one for warcraft.
The answer is to walk away. Civil disobedience is one thing when simply not dealing with the other person is not an issue.
It's ok. I understand unfettered, childish greed. Just sad to see so much of it from people capable of summoning together enough brain cells to handle a login and password.
There is no moral basis on which his or your thoughts on the matter can hang that doesn't eventually lead to distributism.
What are you going to do when one of these letters arrives on your doorstep?
Tell them to eat a dick, I didn't download their software. And unlike most slashdotters, I have pretty much done this to an attorney before.
You still haven't illustrated how some British lawyers fucking up is justification for software piracy.
So what's your suggestion, that nobody bother to enforce the law at all?
When it's him breaking it, of course!
None of these people have a consistent, rational, moral argument in favor of piracy. It always boils down to greedy little shits. Hell, I've had plenty of pirated software on computers over the years. Know why? I'm a greedy little shit too. Difference being I'm not afraid to admit it.
(Truth be told, I have FAR less than I did while younger. Just deleted CS5 the other day, figuring I can use Gimp, iPhoto, and Pixelmator.)
Yes, this agreement is formalized in any number of ways. There is the EULA that ones agrees to upon installation. The primary method is exchanging small green bits of paper for the game at a game shop (or various digital analogs.)
What cheekyjohnson misses over and over and over again is that the artist has created something. Suppose it is a painting. Part of the fact that he owns that painting for his very own is that he has the right to keep it hidden in the attic. Or he can share it with people. He decides that he will share it and let people take a look at it, but only under his terms, namely that he demands a quarter to view it. For 50 cents he will give one and only one customer a copy. Otherwise, it is HIS creation to keep locked in the attic.
Basically, cheekyjohnson has zero respect for the fruits of a person's labor. The logical endpoint of his train of 'logic' would be the most absurd exaggerations of communism. He unjustly enriches himself at the expense of others and follows this tortured scheme of thinking to find some moral underpinning upon which he can claim he did good. Yet I would bet good money that he has not once written a letter (not an email, not a fax, not a phone call) to his representatives, senators, and president (or analogs if not a US citizen) asking that changes be made for the 'broken system' he bemoans.
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read here in a month.
- jesus, that must have been one sad month.
Sad website.
Boy, that's some quality reading comprehension there.
First, I never said that people make rational decisions about what they buy. I said they buy what they want. That doesn't address the rationality of the decision.
Why advertisements? To create brand and product awareness.
You know, it's funny. You accuse me of thinking of people as 'the unenlightened masses', yet you are the one arguing that a fancy jingle and a 30 second spot on TV is enough to get someone to buy something deleterious to them. Who really has the lower opinion of their fellow man?
It never did apply. Wish in one hand and shit in the other, and tell me which fills up first. Sorry we can't all live in a fantasy world.
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read here in a month.
Um, last time I checked making a typo wasn't illegal.
Make a typo on your tax return and get back to me on that.
Ok, that makes what you said a little less anachronistic.
It's sterling analysis like this that will keep you droning away in a cubicle or perhaps slaving away for some pittance as a shopkeep. Your lack of insight and taste for sour grapes will keep you mired in the quagmire for a long time to come.
Christ, does anybody on Slashdot understand that there are use cases other than their own and that what suits them may not suit another person?
Lack of empathy is a pre-requisite for Slashdot commenting.
I can't figure it out, is it a youth thing, or a nerd thing?
I wish others cultures were strong enough to avoid it when the US tries to spread its culture around the world.
The reason Linux excels in the server room is that server room geeks identified their needs and created a product. The reason that iPads sell is that Steve Jobs identified a niche and had a product created. Pure and simple. Damned few people buy something that they don't want to, and once someone gets over the age of about 5, it's very hard to convince them to want something against their better interests. Scratch that, after having tried to get a kid to eat veggies, it's even younger than that.
The amazing thing is that people can't just let it go. Given how FEW people have smartphones and iPads/tablets, there is HUGE potential for growth and even less chance that the market will become dominated by a single player for long like desktops in the 90's.
Yeah, you and much of the Slashdot crowd don't really understand marketing. It seems that 'marketing' is equated with 'advertising'. Not in the least. Apple is actually a very good at marketing, but not in the limited way some seem to understand it. Apple didn't 'create' the market for the iPad, they discovered it. Big difference. Once found, they created a product that would appeal to that market. Not as simple as a PDA, not as unwieldy and complex as a laptop. Then they told people about it.
It's a tradeoff. Classic PDAs go too far towards the simple, laptops don't go far enough.
If Apple succeeds 'just' because of marketing and if marketing is so simple, how come geeks haven't crowdsourced the problem of getting Linux adopted by the masses?
Answer: Apple succeeds due to more than advertising, and marketing is harder than you'll admit.
(BTW, lame mod on you. Misinformed? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Troll? No.)
I won't reference your signature since you are speaking of your personal experiences, but more information may make your point more interesting. I work in government and see none of the attitude and thinking that you are observing. Federal, FWIW. Non DoD. Are you just in a firm or two? Size, location, industry? Old management? And are they really saying this outright?
Your comment seems a bit incredulous, which is probably why so many people are questioning it.
1985 called, it wants its worldview back.
It's quite welcome to drop by any time and pick it up.
Good thing DeLoreans were available cheaply back then.
Wow. Just... Wow. If a prerequisite to being old and wise is to first be young and stupid, you are destined to become Methuselah.
Because my crippled old bones cannot take the abuse from the desktop replacement laptops. In addition, my bloodflow is so poor from years of binging on Doritos that it cannot carry away the heat put off by these computing devices.
Christ, does anybody on Slashdot understand that there are use cases other than their own and that what suits them may not suit another person?
Not to mention the relevance (or lack thereof) of a device's performance in bright sunlight to most businesses.
Having used a Mac on and off since 1987, I've used a fair number of apps. Not all of them. But plenty. I can say without a doubt, I wouldn't for an instant want to spend 99 cents on a desktop or phone application programmed by someone who thinks a Mac is "a fairly expensive computer you abhor". The apps are substandard in ways that matter to me. If that's the tax that keeps you out of that market, so be it.
BTW, why wouldn't I just sample said woman myself and make my own decision?
It came from linear extrapolation of a set of figures taken at a key time:
1) the iPhone 4 was launching in a few months, so sales of the 3G and 3GS slumped
2) Verizon was doing a 2 for 1 deal on android handsets during that same period, so every purchase was counting double
3) the Android numbers then went above the iPhone numbers in that quarter.
4) people drew a straight line graph upwards based on those figures
5) profit?
5) "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continues... AAY!"
No reason that fandroids of iOS fanboys should look at the other as 'the enemy'. Plenty of room for both. They keep each other moving. *shrug*