Hey, and Giampolo's now been hired by Apple according to the article. Wouldn't be surprised if we'll be seeing some of these same goodies in MacOSX shortly.
So as I don't come off sounding too cynical, let me first say that I think the Internet is a powerful and important set of technologies. It has changed the way I work, play and interact with others.
We cannot lose sight of the fact, however, that it is not the only way to work, live and be social. As the article states, 90% of the world is still not online, and it's a safe bet to say that many of those have probably never even heard of the Internet, and perhaps have no interest in it. While the propogation of these types of technologies throughout Asia and Africa would no doubt improve many lives and perhaps even give credibility to the notion that technology can help people transcend constraining economic, social and political barriers, we must still remember that we are living in a mostly offline world in which technology and modernity has just as often been used to oppress, homogenize and destroy.
So yes, the growth of the Internet is amazing, but, as with everything else, we should no be surprised to find unintended consequences from its growth.
Their statistics here are just not convincing.
Without supporting evidence, they conclude that: "if they could get a handle on the scale of the problem among college students, it likely would represent the worst it gets among the general population." There is no reason to assume that this would be true, either: college students pirate in different ways than do people who 'borrow' software from work. Adults and teens are warez'ing types as well. So, there's no way to conclude that what they learn about college students is necessarily going to be of any value.
In 1996/7, they surveyed only 148 undergraduates, finding that about 78 of them (53 percent) admitted to pirating software. This is really too low of a number in too specialized a location (University of Florida students, who may or may not be like students at other universities) to be of much use, even as compared to data on University of Florida students nearly five years later. As if the low sample size and scant other mention about survey design didn't cast enough doubt about the accuracy of their conclusions, the surveyors admit that this number is inaccurate! From the article: " the researchers found 53 percent of the students admitted to pirating software - meaning the true number likely was considerably higher, Chiang said." The purpose of survey design is to create a survey that by its design reduces these built-in biases. If you know that people will lie to you if asked, it's good practice to double-check somehow by, say, auditing their computers for stolen software (you'd probably have to bribe them, and you'd definitely have to assure them that their names would remain anonymous, but still: if they were interested in good survey design, they needed to do better than this)
Even the most recent survey is pathetic. With 700 students surveyed, they now conclude that only 40% pirate (though did they ask the same questions this time? Were students more or less likely to lie this time? What? We need more information than this). But since the original survey was so small, with such a high margin of error, how can they then say with any degree of certitude that there has been a reduction in piracy? There really isn't a big difference between 50% piracy and 40% piracy if the margin of error is +-5% (which it must at least be).
So yeah, while their conclusion that people can be legitimately enticed to buy software (or music) by increasing quality and usefulness, take this survey with a chunk of NaCl.
I am a college students keenly aware of just how crappy most college papers are. Any company that would voluntarily subject itself to reading thousands of crappy college papers are either deserving of some sympathy or else they are masochists.
(me, in my last semester of college actually feeling a bit sad that nobody will ever pay me to write a paper about plato again...)
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, and Giampolo's now been hired by Apple according to the article. Wouldn't be surprised if we'll be seeing some of these same goodies in MacOSX shortly.
We cannot lose sight of the fact, however, that it is not the only way to work, live and be social. As the article states, 90% of the world is still not online, and it's a safe bet to say that many of those have probably never even heard of the Internet, and perhaps have no interest in it. While the propogation of these types of technologies throughout Asia and Africa would no doubt improve many lives and perhaps even give credibility to the notion that technology can help people transcend constraining economic, social and political barriers, we must still remember that we are living in a mostly offline world in which technology and modernity has just as often been used to oppress, homogenize and destroy.
So yes, the growth of the Internet is amazing, but, as with everything else, we should no be surprised to find unintended consequences from its growth.
In 1996/7, they surveyed only 148 undergraduates, finding that about 78 of them (53 percent) admitted to pirating software. This is really too low of a number in too specialized a location (University of Florida students, who may or may not be like students at other universities) to be of much use, even as compared to data on University of Florida students nearly five years later. As if the low sample size and scant other mention about survey design didn't cast enough doubt about the accuracy of their conclusions, the surveyors admit that this number is inaccurate! From the article: " the researchers found 53 percent of the students admitted to pirating software - meaning the true number likely was considerably higher, Chiang said." The purpose of survey design is to create a survey that by its design reduces these built-in biases. If you know that people will lie to you if asked, it's good practice to double-check somehow by, say, auditing their computers for stolen software (you'd probably have to bribe them, and you'd definitely have to assure them that their names would remain anonymous, but still: if they were interested in good survey design, they needed to do better than this)
Even the most recent survey is pathetic. With 700 students surveyed, they now conclude that only 40% pirate (though did they ask the same questions this time? Were students more or less likely to lie this time? What? We need more information than this). But since the original survey was so small, with such a high margin of error, how can they then say with any degree of certitude that there has been a reduction in piracy? There really isn't a big difference between 50% piracy and 40% piracy if the margin of error is +-5% (which it must at least be).
So yeah, while their conclusion that people can be legitimately enticed to buy software (or music) by increasing quality and usefulness, take this survey with a chunk of NaCl.
Please no! Laptop makers have enough trouble keeping traditional batteries from catching fire.
[I can picture it now]
FTC to Michael Dell: "You shipped 20,000 laptops with defective fusion generators."
Michael Dell: "Shite! Call the lawyers!"
I am a college students keenly aware of just how crappy most college papers are. Any company that would voluntarily subject itself to reading thousands of crappy college papers are either deserving of some sympathy or else they are masochists.
(me, in my last semester of college actually feeling a bit sad that nobody will ever pay me to write a paper about plato again...)