If you can read this, you are a monster geek, and I'm an even bigger monster geek, perhaps even a T.Rex geek, because I worked out that slashdot stripped the trailing less-than.
And if this works, then I can eat T.Rex geeks for breakfast: 1|= y()u (4|\| r3@d 7#][5, y0|_|/\r3 @ |V|0|\|$+3|2 &33|<
> if you are a christian, you are really pissed at me right now
Not really, although I only speak for myself. The crucifixion and resurrection were the best things God ever did for us. Not sure why the caption and snickers advert make it offensive - would that same caption and advert placed on, say, your Mom, make that picture offensive?
Exactly what I do. I have very little protection at the browser; everything goes through Proxomitron and basically I whitelist the webcrap. Those sites that use it responsibly stay on the whitelist. Those that don't, and it's immediately obvious who they are because I've just added them to the whitelist so they're the one at the end, get pushed across to the blacklist.
The whitelist approach also sorts out this problem of advertisers finding new ways of generating popups.
I do volunteer work at a local community centre teaching people how to use computers; they use Incontinent Exploder and NO filtering - I can't believe the amount of crap that comes through! Popups, popunders, ads that jiggle about and so on. Seems that about 95% of what's on the screen is pure bollocks with about 5% content. Compared with my usual surfing which may suffer from lots of whitespace but the rest is ALL content, as am I.
Not necessarily. The last thing he wants is to spend a fortune setting the system up, then invite a bunch of mates round and have them all falling around laughing because he hasn't used the proper cables.
(Not that I'm saying Monster cables are the right choice. Just buy/testdrive the cheapest and upgrade if you have a problem with them. My HC projector (InFocus X2) cost UKP800 and is marvellous (although next time I'd go for 16:9). Lots of people reckon no projectors that cost less than a googolplex quid are worth bothering with - fsck'em, I say.)
And don't insist on meetings every fscking five minutes when there's a major deadline approaching. "It's urgent so we need you to sit in this room drinking coffee with us and waffling about an endless string of maybes instead of actually getting on with it" really makes managers look stupid.
How often do managers insist they know better? It really gets me down. If you hire a mechanic to work on your combine harvester and he says he needs a three eighths Gripley, then this means he sodding needs a three eighths Gripley, not some new tool you've just plucked out from where the sun don't shine. Trust your experts to know what they're talking about, don't try to do their jobs for them, and don't try to micromanage them.
Ew, channel 5. BBC2 is probably the best channel. BBC1 is like BBC2 without the good bits. ITV is like BBC1 without the good bits. Channel 4 is like ITV without the good bits. Channel 5 is like Channel 4 without the good bits. (I've heard this has changed in recent years, but I don't pay the BBC Tax, so I can't watch any of it.)
Last time I tuned into Channel 5 I nearly threw up - it was a nude gameshow, and they weren't using models. The host was KEITH CHEGWIN! Ewwww.... That was not a pretty sight. The last time I saw him was probably on Cheggers Plays Pop.
Of course, it's an old fashioned way, with SCO leading the way with new ideas like profit through litigation and customer alienation, but it might still work.
An obvious enhancement to search engines would be to add a form of Wiki's disambiguation. For example, if I type "reading" into a search engine, am I after information on books or about the settlement of Reading? Further, if the latter, is that Reading, England or one of several American locations? A good example of something that should be completely possible to avoid is if I search for "reading bookshops", the 6th result is "Information about books, bookshops and reading in Andalucia, Spain." Completely sodding useless.
Currently it's fairly well known that a search for Paris Hilton doesn't get you much in the line of hotels (ok, "paris hilton hotel" fixes that, but it would still be nice not to have to try to think up additional words that limit the search results without removing useful results from the list. So perhaps the bookshops-in-Reading-England is a better example. What could you add to "reading bookshops" to get a list of bookshops in Reading, England?)
It's not entirely impossible to automate the process of determining exactly which meaning of "Paris" a given webpage is using - Bayesian techniques currently used for spam detection come to mind. So if a page contains words like "paris boobs fanny", it's less likely to be about travel arrangements than about pr0n (well, that depends what sort of travel plans you have, I suppose), and could be classified into the appropriate bucket. Similarly "paris louvre eiffel" is more likely to suggest the French city.
(Note for American readers: in England, a fanny is a female characteristic, also sometimes referred to as a front bottom. See Roger's Profanisaurus for more euphemisms.)
Of course the obvious problem with this is that Paris the pr0n star's authors are then going to start looking at putting references to French POIs in the website. But this can be countered by extending the use of the Page Rank mechanism - if lots of travel pages point to the page under test, then it's less likely to be a pr0n page than if a bunch of other pr0n sites are linking to it.
> Oh, off on a tangent, one thing that has always annoyed me about post-Amiga OSes is that they do NOT seem to support what I call 'Type Behind'. Since most of these OSes either foreground a window when you click on it, or worse yet, when you hover your mouse over it, you must shuffle the windows on the screen if you want to type in one window while reading from another.
There are two possible solutions to this (possibly more). (1) Use Focus Follows Mouse; (2) in Windows, look for the Nail utility, which gives you the ability to specify the Always On Top flag for any window. As I'm typing this I have Firefox full screen with Explorer nailed above it so I could give you a list of files in my root directory without any window switching, if I desired, which I don't.
True, this isn't generally supported by applications, but this is a bit of an advanced task anyway, and could create more confusion than it solves for a beginner.
> 1) Windows hasn't always had a predictable UI (and IMHO still hasn't). Case in point: drag n drop a file between 2 folders on the same disk: it moves the file, do the same between 2 disks: it copys the file, do the same to the desktop: it links the file. This is unpredictable in the extreem.
[pedantic mode=1] Actually, WD, since you've just described exactly what Windows does, you have shown only that Windows is very predictable, not that it is unpredictable.[/pedantic]
You just need to know how to interpret the feedback the computer gives you. If you see a little [+] during a drag/drop, then that's a copy, if you don't then that's a move. If you see a [+] and press Shift, it changes the operation to a move. If you see no [+] and press Ctrl, it changes it to a copy. If you can't be bothered to read the screen and you want a move, press Shift because it doesn't have any effect if that's what it would have done anyway (similarly for copy/Ctrl).
"Which is which?" I hear you cry. Shift causes the computer to shift the file from one place to another; that's how I remember it.
Generally, if you rely on defaults, ignore the computer's feedback (i.e. you don't RTFS, or perhaps UTFS) and do not know how to change the default behaviour to what you want, then yes, you could argue that the computer is "unpredictable." But I guess that's probably true for Linux and OSX as well, and probably every other computer sytem out there, and that this is more a case of PEBCAK than Windows crappiness.
I find it interesting that lots of/.ers in this thread (not just Welsh Dwarf) are posting what amounts to little more than "Windows is crap because I don't know how to use it."
I don't think there is an easy rule. Generally I think of 1 click=select, 2 clicks=activate/execute/run, but you need to know how what you're clicking on responds to a single click to know whether or not it needs a double click to perform the operation you want.
Menu items only need a single click to perform the appropriate action. The Start menu is a menu, hence the name, so anything in Start only needs a single click to activate. But a list of icons in Explorer can also look like a menu, and you need to be able to explain that it's not a menu but a collection of icons which can be selected or activated, hence the single and double click.
> neither Windows nor OS X permits this. And they don't have a way to lower a window either
Well, I can't speak for OS X, but Alt-Esc pushes the current window to the back on Windows.
Earlier versions of Windows had this bizarre bug that if you Alt-Esc'd the current window, then minimised or closed the then active window, the window you'd just Alt-Esc'd would then jump forward, grabbing focus from the 3rd window that should then have been active, but as far as I can tell that's fixed in Win2k and XP.
> Windows experts are agonizingly slow, with lots of extra motions for everything
You seem to have an odd definition of "Windows experts." Most things can be done quite simply if you know how, which before you start howling with laughter is equally true in OS X and Linux. The main difference is that in Windows most things are actually labelled; you only need to RTFS.
Examples: System menu: Alt-space. Close window: Alt-F4. MDI child window "system" menu: Alt--. It's all there. It's even labelled in most cases. Press Alt-F for the File menu. See the second column in the popup? Those are the keyboard shortcuts. TalsoMTOWTDI. See the little underscores? Those are keyboard shortcuts as well. So here in Firefox, to open a new tab, there's Ctrl-T, or you can pull down the File menu with the mouse and click New Tab, or you can pull down the File menu with Alt-F and use cursor up/down and Return, or you can do Alt-F-T. Want to exit? (1) hit the X button with the mouse; (2) Alt-space-Close; (3) Alt-F-X; (4) Alt-F4; (5) double-click the system menu; (6) right-click the titlebar and select Close.
Often "Windows experts" are agonisingly slow because they choose to be or can't be arsed to look for new ways of doing stuff, not because there isn't a quicker way to do things. Windows was actually designed in the early days to operate without a mouse, and a lot of that code is still present in current versions and very usable. X-Windows could learn a lot about usability from Microsoft.
Find a Windows user who hardly ever touches the mouse (and if they're anything like me, curses the stupid designers of a particular piece of software that didn't think of a keyboard shortcut for a particular operation). THEN, and only then, will you have found a true Windows expert. Someone who reaches for the mouse, waves it around to find the pointer on the screen, takes several attempts to click the File menu, moves the pointer up and down over the menu several times until their brains finally click into what they're looking for, then double-click the menu option and wonder why the thing behind the menu just got a click; that person - I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you - is NOT an expert.
Dead right. What kind of break from the past was that? They should have stopped speaking English as well (no, pronouncing all vowels as "a" or "aya" doesn't count, as in the disaster movie phrase "Aah maah Gayad, waah ganah daaaaaaaah"). In fact why stop there? I see Americans' body chemistry is still derived from the English, so not only should they rewrite their DNA they should also stop using DNA completely!
FMI, what's with taking a perfectly workable noun and adding two extensions that convert the noun into something else then back again? If you need a noun, use "chagrin". Converting "chagrined" to a noun can be done by removing the -ed extension.
OTOH of course, you could have wonderful nouns such as: chagrinednessednessednessed- nessednessednessednessedness- ednessednessednessednessedness. That's probably longer than that poly...volcano...silly...etc wossname!
So you'll still get rainbows then. At first I thought it had a set of three 800x600 LED-powered light sources, but on closer inspection it appears they're simply replacing a white light source and RGB colour wheel with RGB light sources.
I don't understand why they don't release a 3-way DLP projector at a reasonable price. My OutOfFocus X2 cost £800; that makes £2400 for a rainbow-free DLP projector. But all 3-way DLPs seem to assume you're running a cinema and are priced accordingly, and all DLPs that cost 3x a basic 1-DLP still only have 1 DLP chip and a stack of expensive electronics that should IMHO cost nowhere near as much as it does.
I'm dead chuffed with my IF X2 though. The only thing I'd change it for is a short throw native 16:9 projector - vertical bars with a 4x3 screen make much more sense to me than horizontal bars, especially as my wall is much wider than it is tall.
Although I can see rainbows they don't really bother me. It only happens when I flick my eyes rapidly from one part of the screen to another, but generally I stare at the centre and watch the film with peripheral vision.
I gave HP some cash and they gave me a shit printer. Then I gave them some more cash and I got another shit printer. Which HP printer should I get next?
ObAskSlashdot: I'm thinking of starting a business. How can I find people as gullible as this? I'd be able to retire in double-quick time.
> I'm telling you people the problem with code bloat is C++...I'd sooner do COBOL.
Er, right. So it's impossible to write efficient code in C++ and impossible to write bloated slugware in Cobol, is that what you're saying?
Sorry, but I totally disagree. The language itself does not define bloatm although different languages may support bloat to greater or lesser extents. It is the use of that language and/or the application design that defines the amount of bloat. I would contend as an experienced C++ programmer that it is perfectly possible to write clean, efficient code in C++, but that people simply choose not to, for whatever reason (ease of coding, speed not an issue and so on). Equally I would contend that it is perfectly possible to write slow bloatware in Assembler or Cobol if you choose to design the application in that way.
That's great, go right ahead. In fact I've read your company's licence, and although I agree in principle that I should pay for your products, in fact I'm going to pirate them instead and send you a bit of cash once I consider it "necessary and important" to give you something back for your hard work. By your own reasoning, there should be nothing at all wrong with that approach.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can read this, you are a monster geek, and I'm an even bigger monster geek, perhaps even a T.Rex geek, because I worked out that slashdot stripped the trailing less-than.
/\r3 @ |V|0|\|$+3|2 &33|<
And if this works, then I can eat T.Rex geeks for breakfast: 1|= y()u (4|\| r3@d 7#][5, y0|_|
1337=leet=elite
1+=it
r0x0r=rock, I think
No idea what 80>0rZ is. Bots, perhaps, but that doesn't make sense.
> if you are a christian, you are really pissed at me right now
Not really, although I only speak for myself. The crucifixion and resurrection were the best things God ever did for us. Not sure why the caption and snickers advert make it offensive - would that same caption and advert placed on, say, your Mom, make that picture offensive?
Exactly what I do. I have very little protection at the browser; everything goes through Proxomitron and basically I whitelist the webcrap. Those sites that use it responsibly stay on the whitelist. Those that don't, and it's immediately obvious who they are because I've just added them to the whitelist so they're the one at the end, get pushed across to the blacklist.
The whitelist approach also sorts out this problem of advertisers finding new ways of generating popups.
I do volunteer work at a local community centre teaching people how to use computers; they use Incontinent Exploder and NO filtering - I can't believe the amount of crap that comes through! Popups, popunders, ads that jiggle about and so on. Seems that about 95% of what's on the screen is pure bollocks with about 5% content. Compared with my usual surfing which may suffer from lots of whitespace but the rest is ALL content, as am I.
> he's trying to cover his fanny
That always makes me laugh. But then I am English. Men don't have fannies in England.
> it doesn't matter if WE can hear a difference
Not necessarily. The last thing he wants is to spend a fortune setting the system up, then invite a bunch of mates round and have them all falling around laughing because he hasn't used the proper cables.
(Not that I'm saying Monster cables are the right choice. Just buy/testdrive the cheapest and upgrade if you have a problem with them. My HC projector (InFocus X2) cost UKP800 and is marvellous (although next time I'd go for 16:9). Lots of people reckon no projectors that cost less than a googolplex quid are worth bothering with - fsck'em, I say.)
And don't insist on meetings every fscking five minutes when there's a major deadline approaching. "It's urgent so we need you to sit in this room drinking coffee with us and waffling about an endless string of maybes instead of actually getting on with it" really makes managers look stupid.
How often do managers insist they know better? It really gets me down. If you hire a mechanic to work on your combine harvester and he says he needs a three eighths Gripley, then this means he sodding needs a three eighths Gripley, not some new tool you've just plucked out from where the sun don't shine. Trust your experts to know what they're talking about, don't try to do their jobs for them, and don't try to micromanage them.
Ew, channel 5. BBC2 is probably the best channel. BBC1 is like BBC2 without the good bits. ITV is like BBC1 without the good bits. Channel 4 is like ITV without the good bits. Channel 5 is like Channel 4 without the good bits. (I've heard this has changed in recent years, but I don't pay the BBC Tax, so I can't watch any of it.)
Last time I tuned into Channel 5 I nearly threw up - it was a nude gameshow, and they weren't using models. The host was KEITH CHEGWIN! Ewwww.... That was not a pretty sight. The last time I saw him was probably on Cheggers Plays Pop.
Particularly amusing is the neat way you blow away the Fifth Amendment while quoting the Second.
Of course, it's an old fashioned way, with SCO leading the way with new ideas like profit through litigation and customer alienation, but it might still work.
An obvious enhancement to search engines would be to add a form of Wiki's disambiguation. For example, if I type "reading" into a search engine, am I after information on books or about the settlement of Reading? Further, if the latter, is that Reading, England or one of several American locations? A good example of something that should be completely possible to avoid is if I search for "reading bookshops", the 6th result is "Information about books, bookshops and reading in Andalucia, Spain." Completely sodding useless.
Currently it's fairly well known that a search for Paris Hilton doesn't get you much in the line of hotels (ok, "paris hilton hotel" fixes that, but it would still be nice not to have to try to think up additional words that limit the search results without removing useful results from the list. So perhaps the bookshops-in-Reading-England is a better example. What could you add to "reading bookshops" to get a list of bookshops in Reading, England?)
It's not entirely impossible to automate the process of determining exactly which meaning of "Paris" a given webpage is using - Bayesian techniques currently used for spam detection come to mind. So if a page contains words like "paris boobs fanny", it's less likely to be about travel arrangements than about pr0n (well, that depends what sort of travel plans you have, I suppose), and could be classified into the appropriate bucket. Similarly "paris louvre eiffel" is more likely to suggest the French city.
(Note for American readers: in England, a fanny is a female characteristic, also sometimes referred to as a front bottom. See Roger's Profanisaurus for more euphemisms.)
Of course the obvious problem with this is that Paris the pr0n star's authors are then going to start looking at putting references to French POIs in the website. But this can be countered by extending the use of the Page Rank mechanism - if lots of travel pages point to the page under test, then it's less likely to be a pr0n page than if a bunch of other pr0n sites are linking to it.
> Walk to the bathroom
It'll do you good, and also help get rid of the damp green stripe on the carpet between you and the bathroom and the smell from your bin.
> Oh, off on a tangent, one thing that has always annoyed me about post-Amiga OSes is that they do NOT seem to support what I call 'Type Behind'. Since most of these OSes either foreground a window when you click on it, or worse yet, when you hover your mouse over it, you must shuffle the windows on the screen if you want to type in one window while reading from another.
There are two possible solutions to this (possibly more). (1) Use Focus Follows Mouse; (2) in Windows, look for the Nail utility, which gives you the ability to specify the Always On Top flag for any window. As I'm typing this I have Firefox full screen with Explorer nailed above it so I could give you a list of files in my root directory without any window switching, if I desired, which I don't.
True, this isn't generally supported by applications, but this is a bit of an advanced task anyway, and could create more confusion than it solves for a beginner.
> 1) Windows hasn't always had a predictable UI (and IMHO still hasn't). Case in point: drag n drop a file between 2 folders on the same disk: it moves the file, do the same between 2 disks: it copys the file, do the same to the desktop: it links the file. This is unpredictable in the extreem.
/.ers in this thread (not just Welsh Dwarf) are posting what amounts to little more than "Windows is crap because I don't know how to use it."
[pedantic mode=1] Actually, WD, since you've just described exactly what Windows does, you have shown only that Windows is very predictable, not that it is unpredictable.[/pedantic]
You just need to know how to interpret the feedback the computer gives you. If you see a little [+] during a drag/drop, then that's a copy, if you don't then that's a move. If you see a [+] and press Shift, it changes the operation to a move. If you see no [+] and press Ctrl, it changes it to a copy. If you can't be bothered to read the screen and you want a move, press Shift because it doesn't have any effect if that's what it would have done anyway (similarly for copy/Ctrl).
"Which is which?" I hear you cry. Shift causes the computer to shift the file from one place to another; that's how I remember it.
Generally, if you rely on defaults, ignore the computer's feedback (i.e. you don't RTFS, or perhaps UTFS) and do not know how to change the default behaviour to what you want, then yes, you could argue that the computer is "unpredictable." But I guess that's probably true for Linux and OSX as well, and probably every other computer sytem out there, and that this is more a case of PEBCAK than Windows crappiness.
I find it interesting that lots of
I don't think there is an easy rule. Generally I think of 1 click=select, 2 clicks=activate/execute/run, but you need to know how what you're clicking on responds to a single click to know whether or not it needs a double click to perform the operation you want.
Menu items only need a single click to perform the appropriate action. The Start menu is a menu, hence the name, so anything in Start only needs a single click to activate. But a list of icons in Explorer can also look like a menu, and you need to be able to explain that it's not a menu but a collection of icons which can be selected or activated, hence the single and double click.
> neither Windows nor OS X permits this. And they don't have a way to lower a window either
Well, I can't speak for OS X, but Alt-Esc pushes the current window to the back on Windows.
Earlier versions of Windows had this bizarre bug that if you Alt-Esc'd the current window, then minimised or closed the then active window, the window you'd just Alt-Esc'd would then jump forward, grabbing focus from the 3rd window that should then have been active, but as far as I can tell that's fixed in Win2k and XP.
> Windows experts are agonizingly slow, with lots of extra motions for everything
You seem to have an odd definition of "Windows experts." Most things can be done quite simply if you know how, which before you start howling with laughter is equally true in OS X and Linux. The main difference is that in Windows most things are actually labelled; you only need to RTFS.
Examples: System menu: Alt-space. Close window: Alt-F4. MDI child window "system" menu: Alt--. It's all there. It's even labelled in most cases. Press Alt-F for the File menu. See the second column in the popup? Those are the keyboard shortcuts. TalsoMTOWTDI. See the little underscores? Those are keyboard shortcuts as well. So here in Firefox, to open a new tab, there's Ctrl-T, or you can pull down the File menu with the mouse and click New Tab, or you can pull down the File menu with Alt-F and use cursor up/down and Return, or you can do Alt-F-T. Want to exit? (1) hit the X button with the mouse; (2) Alt-space-Close; (3) Alt-F-X; (4) Alt-F4; (5) double-click the system menu; (6) right-click the titlebar and select Close.
Often "Windows experts" are agonisingly slow because they choose to be or can't be arsed to look for new ways of doing stuff, not because there isn't a quicker way to do things. Windows was actually designed in the early days to operate without a mouse, and a lot of that code is still present in current versions and very usable. X-Windows could learn a lot about usability from Microsoft.
Find a Windows user who hardly ever touches the mouse (and if they're anything like me, curses the stupid designers of a particular piece of software that didn't think of a keyboard shortcut for a particular operation). THEN, and only then, will you have found a true Windows expert. Someone who reaches for the mouse, waves it around to find the pointer on the screen, takes several attempts to click the File menu, moves the pointer up and down over the menu several times until their brains finally click into what they're looking for, then double-click the menu option and wonder why the thing behind the menu just got a click; that person - I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you - is NOT an expert.
or WARNING: This product contains the chemical DHMO, which is lethal when inhaled, even in small quantities.
Shorly yoo meen "Or wil yoo tri tu justifie speling it nuthing like it sownds"
Dead right. What kind of break from the past was that? They should have stopped speaking English as well (no, pronouncing all vowels as "a" or "aya" doesn't count, as in the disaster movie phrase "Aah maah Gayad, waah ganah daaaaaaaah"). In fact why stop there? I see Americans' body chemistry is still derived from the English, so not only should they rewrite their DNA they should also stop using DNA completely!
> It'll be interesing to see where it goes from here.
I was going to reply but I forgot how to spell "Neeow splat".
FMI, what's with taking a perfectly workable noun and adding two extensions that convert the noun into something else then back again? If you need a noun, use "chagrin". Converting "chagrined" to a noun can be done by removing the -ed extension.
OTOH of course, you could have wonderful nouns such as: chagrinednessednessednessed- nessednessednessednessedness- ednessednessednessednessedness. That's probably longer than that poly...volcano...silly...etc wossname!
So you'll still get rainbows then. At first I thought it had a set of three 800x600 LED-powered light sources, but on closer inspection it appears they're simply replacing a white light source and RGB colour wheel with RGB light sources.
I don't understand why they don't release a 3-way DLP projector at a reasonable price. My OutOfFocus X2 cost £800; that makes £2400 for a rainbow-free DLP projector. But all 3-way DLPs seem to assume you're running a cinema and are priced accordingly, and all DLPs that cost 3x a basic 1-DLP still only have 1 DLP chip and a stack of expensive electronics that should IMHO cost nowhere near as much as it does.
I'm dead chuffed with my IF X2 though. The only thing I'd change it for is a short throw native 16:9 projector - vertical bars with a 4x3 screen make much more sense to me than horizontal bars, especially as my wall is much wider than it is tall.
Although I can see rainbows they don't really bother me. It only happens when I flick my eyes rapidly from one part of the screen to another, but generally I stare at the centre and watch the film with peripheral vision.
I gave HP some cash and they gave me a shit printer. Then I gave them some more cash and I got another shit printer. Which HP printer should I get next?
ObAskSlashdot: I'm thinking of starting a business. How can I find people as gullible as this? I'd be able to retire in double-quick time.
> I'm telling you people the problem with code bloat is C++...I'd sooner do COBOL.
Er, right. So it's impossible to write efficient code in C++ and impossible to write bloated slugware in Cobol, is that what you're saying?
Sorry, but I totally disagree. The language itself does not define bloatm although different languages may support bloat to greater or lesser extents. It is the use of that language and/or the application design that defines the amount of bloat. I would contend as an experienced C++ programmer that it is perfectly possible to write clean, efficient code in C++, but that people simply choose not to, for whatever reason (ease of coding, speed not an issue and so on). Equally I would contend that it is perfectly possible to write slow bloatware in Assembler or Cobol if you choose to design the application in that way.
That's great, go right ahead. In fact I've read your company's licence, and although I agree in principle that I should pay for your products, in fact I'm going to pirate them instead and send you a bit of cash once I consider it "necessary and important" to give you something back for your hard work. By your own reasoning, there should be nothing at all wrong with that approach.
Sauce for the goose...