Perhaps, but it won't exempt you from considerations of distance and transport between your place of gathering/creating that energy and the places where people need it.
Oh God, when is this going to end. Just wondering, do you often make discussions drag the fuck on for like 20 replies, or are you doing something special for me? If stubbornness could win you arguments you'd have a shot at winning this one.
why should anyone buy a copy from you when they can get a copy for free from someone who's willing to share?
And we've come full circle, so I'll have to repeat what I've said in my earlier posts. because they can't find it anywhere else.
Charging for your labor, on the other hand, will still work just fine: they can't copy what hasn't been written, so if they want new software and no one will write it for free, they have no choice but to pay a programmer to write it.
Shut the fuck up, dumbass. No ones gonna pay you for you to do shit unless they're a company. I don't cater to companies, I cater to individual users, home and studio users.
Again, no one is demanding that you do anything for free. If no one is paying you to write code, and you don't feel like writing code for free, then don't write it.
God damn, how fucking dumb can you be? So your suggestion is, if you're not going to do things the ass backwards way I suggested of getting people to pay for the promise you might do something, then deprive yourself from making any money when you can make some? I've talked to a lot of stupid people on Slashdot, abysmal cretins, morons with delusions of intelligence, but out of them all you're the winner, because you don't only say stupid things, you dismiss any explanation of what's wrong with the stupid things you say and you keep repeating them in the hope they'll eventually stop being stupid. I say bravo!
One of three things will happen: they'll find someone else who does feel like writing code for free, or they'll pay you to write it, or they'll realize they don't need that code written after all.
OK imagine you're that Ford guy. Who's gonna pay you to build cars? Who's gonna build them cars for no profit? Who's gonna sit down and say "well who needs automobiles anyway"? Oh, what's that? That's not the way it works at all? What is it? First you build and market the cars and people decide whether or not they want to buy some and that's how it's worked for mostly anything since the dawn of time? Well what do you know!
Except that you need to get your electricity from the Death Valley to where it's needed, and a lot can get lost in the process, plus it costs infrastructure money.
*facepalm*. If you want something that looks like a woman and fucks like a woman, get your own crack whore. When you don't want to see her anymore just stop giving her crack/crack money.
This is why a male sex robot is fairly useless
Yeah, hence all the vibrators and dildos. Also, fuckingmachines. Doesn't look anything like a man but when it comes to sex with not a person then all women care about is mechanical action, not looks.
the tables will likely be turned, and in a big way
Hmmm, lots of people over 90 can't wait for death. Dunno how many, dunno whether it's because of their quality of life or because of how long it lasted, but I'd suggest you wait until you're 100 before you wish to live 100 times longer. It's like all those people in their 20s and 30s claiming that life is short. Maybe it is if you get hit by a mad truck at the age of 14, but some people out there have lived through WWI, I mean shit, even Zsa Zsa Gabor and Kirk Douglas are still alive. I wouldn't call their lives short. And maybe it's even less short if you get to do anything you could have done and accomplished in your life long before you die.
Instead of worrying about how long you live, perhaps you should worry about what you do with your life for the time you can conservatively expect it to last, so maybe on your deathbed you'll have no regrets and will be only looking forward to see what happens next. You might be surprised.
In this quick and dirty test, a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files.
It might have been pointed out before, but if they actually can tell the difference and prefer one from the other then it still means there's a difference. That they grew to like the artifacts due to MP3 compression is a different story from the fact we can actually tell the difference.
I submit that there is an excellent chance your program is worthless from an economic standpoint.
If it makes money (over $13,000 since January so far) then how does it make it economically worthless? I guess it only does only if you go "if X and Y and if Z then your program is worthless". Let's see if that's the way you go...
Unless you have done something that no one else on earth knows how to do, there is nothing stopping an open source developer from rewriting it and releasing it.
Well, what I did was fairly unique, and no one has rewritten it and released it, so what you're saying is "if an open source developer rewrote the exact same thing and released it for free then your program would be worthless". Yeah, that's a pretty big if.
Perhaps no one has done this yet—but to me, that means there isn't much demand for whatever you've done or it would have been a priority to the open source world.
So what you're saying is "your program must be worthless cause if it was worthy then someone would have taken the aforementioned steps to make it worthless". Makes you wonder how any software can be worth anything the way you view things. But again, if you were right my program wouldn't have made $13,000, which it did, so you're wrong that it's worthless, unless you have a definition for 'worthless' that somehow can be reconciled with "makes significant sums of money".
As I've argued in a post of mine you may have not read, open source is only able to compete with commercial programs when the appeal is, to developers, wide enough, and how feasible the task is to them. In my market, audio programs, there's very little FOSS software that compares with commercial programs, except for very trivial things that no one would pay more than $5 for. You can't even find a decent FOSS audio editor. So for something cutting edge like my program, I have little to fear, it's not just about anyone who could do something like this, and if they could they'd be stupid to give it up for free. And to use your style of self-proving argument, I'll submit that someone smart enough to write a program like mine wouldn't be stupid enough to release it for free;-).
Just so you know what you're talking about, here's the program in question. The FOSS program that comes the closest is the FOSS project of mine it was based on, ARSS, which is a command-line utility, so yeah, doesn't really compare.
And I have a pretty good handle on the economic value given the fact that you're posting here on/. instead of skiing down an Alpine mountain while drinking Cristal and eating filet mignon.
You love arguments that magically prove themselves, don't you? I think the fact that John Carmack posts on Slashdot invalidates that, but I'm not rolling on gold either, although I do make a living off my program, which is in itself quite extraordinary considered what my program is and how not straightforward it is to convince people they need it (let alone pay for it).
Sure, there are outliers, but by and large people who accumulate a lot of wealth do so by creating value for society. I'm sure you can point to individual examples, but can you point to a significant demographic of the population that gets a lot for "doing much less"? I submit that you cannot...because if you could, there would be an influx of people wanting that job...salaries they could demand would go down, etc.
Dude, I work hard and make half the minimum salary. It won't be hard to find people who make ten times what I do while working less hard.
Look, if I tell you that I've created this epic application and I'll never update it or extend it or release it for others to work on or support it again, it's done for now and ever and nothing is ever going to happen with it from here on out, would you pay me for it?
I can tell you that even if you don't tell anyone that then no one will pa
You, on the other hand, are incapable of considering anything other than what you're used to
No, I've considered your dumbass suggestions and deemed them stupid. You have yet to come up with an alternative course of action that even makes sense.
Yes, that's what you tell yourself. But of course you know it's not true, which is why you've become so insecure that you're punctuating every sentence with an insult.
lol, oh yeah? Well you're so insecure that you have to respond to my insults to you by claiming that I'm insecure so it reassures you. Or if you prefer, NO U!
If your claims can be believed, there are at least 300 people who benefit from the existence of your software and have demonstrated a willingness to pay for its development, so you can start with them. Or did you just make up that number?
None of them would have given a dime for the promise that eventually such a program would be made, mostly when nothing of it would exist to show what would exist. I mean seriously, how fucking stupid can you be to seriously think it could possibly work? And also, you want the same people who paid me to be able to use my work immediately to instead pay me, then wait months or a year, and finally getting to use what they paid for?? Really?? Just for the principle that I'd be 'paid for my labour' instead of 'paid for distributing'. Fucking moron, stick to typing code and stay away from any business aspect that pertains to marketing. You're just a cretin who because he gets paid to write code thinks that everything should work like this without any clue or regard for how things really work outside his tiny bubble. Clueless opinionated dumbass.
Heh, and to think you accuse me of putting words in your mouth just to argue against them.
Yeah well, what else was I supposed to infer from your suggestion? You sure can't be blamed for giving too many details.
Love the brown light next to your name, it reads 'Freak', it should rather read 'Butthurt':D
It all comes down to how much you lose/fail to make. I don't know whether or not bad reviews would have worse an impact that piracy, it would probably depend on who does the bad review and how widespread the piracy.
And I'm not outraged over potential loss of revenue, I'm 'outraged' (although that's not the best term) that people would demand everything for free for the sake that it's supposedly the thing to do. Not only they but they insult my sense of business and even my work for not complying with their ideology that origins in trying to justify their greed and turning it into a moral higher ground.
Correct. One makes me a little less rich than I should be, the other actually makes me poorer.
Yep, still semantics, which all comes down to the same net result. So, I was right all along and you're a dumbass who likes to make bullshit arguments. And who obviously likes to make them drag the fuck on, I mean come on!
The difference between pay checks and software sales is that there actually is an answer to the question "how much should I be getting paid?", but there is no answer to "how many copies should I be selling?"
The difference is illusory, because practically lower odds of a sale are the same as being paid less money. That's the law of large numbers for you.
Is the reviewer stealing money out of your pocket?
Is your employer stealing money out of your pocket when they write $20 out of your pay check? Yep, dumbass rhetoric question that has no regard for net effects.
300 sales is hardly a big enough sample to conclude that your customers are less inclined to share your software than, say, Adobe's customers.
Moron, you'll put words in my mouth just for the sake of having something to argue, won't you? No one said anything about my customers being less inclined to pirate my software than Adobe's, only that at that point it proves that the problem of piracy isn't important enough for me to care.
I like posting on Slashdot to discuss things and troll at the same time, but let's face it, you're obviously a pretty stupid person, and you try to make up for your lack of intelligence and points to make with stubbornness. This conversation stopped being worthwhile a long time ago. How about you just drop it, I'm not interested in your ideology-fuelled suggestions on how to solve an inexistent problem and in the process make less money, or even your infeasible approaches to business, only making more money. See, you're just an armchair expert discussing things you have no first hand experience with, things which happen to be my business and livelihood. You're just wasting my time, I have little curiosity left for your worthless and misinformed opinions on how I should run my business.
You have a couple choices: you can get someone to promise you money beforehand, then you do the work, then you get the money. Or you can get someone to actually give you the money first, in exchange for your promise to do the work. Either way, if one of you holds up his side of the deal and the other doesn't, the other can sue for breach of contract.
And who on Earth in my specific market would pay for that? Let me guess, a software company that would then sell copies to individual users? Yeah, a middleman, that changes everything.
you're the one who started with the insults
Aduh, dumbass, I always start with insults, that's my arguing style. That's not the point, the point is all you did was talk shit and the little you did that wasn't insulting was stupid and short on practical details.
I'm explaining a business model that eliminates the problem of piracy. If you don't think piracy is a problem, then feel free to ignore it.
Like I said in my other post, it's not a problem. Maybe you'd know that if you actually dealt with the business side of things that deals with end users.
So, the machines' backdoor cannot be used by just about any hacker? Well good to know!
Put in a different way, that's as if you made a contest out of making people try to log through SSH into your machine, to prove that *you* can't log into it.
No, you're just subject to whatever's the opposite of misogyny. Have no fear, it's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism, and it's still politically correct to treat men like they're submen (or subwomen if that makes more sense).
Oh yeah? Too bad you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Look up some links posted above in the discussion, the car/doll differences of preference even works with some apes.
Socialized Europe is seen as effeminate partly for this reason.
Effeminate? You mean macho, right? And what's this "Socialized Europe"? Whatever it could possibly be, it surely doesn't include Mediterranean countries, does it?
If there's one country in the world where wives symbolically cut off their husbands balls, it's in the USA. And it's nothing new, it already was like this in the 1950s, as could attest my French father who lived with Americans around that time. It's a national/cultural thing, women have more of a mommy role in married couples, whereas in Europe (or parts of it) if anything it's more like the man is the both, if not more of a daddy figure to the woman. So we don't take too kindly of Stay At Home Dads around here.
Yeah, in my country (France), they just make the smart ones skip a year and the ones who can't keep up (usually those who overall over the entire year scored less than 10 out of 20) repeat the year. By the time we reach graduation the vast majority of people have repeated a grade at least once, even I, who skipped the first grade. It works quite well like this.
"Hey guys, look at me, look at me! I'm talking about crap I don't know a goddamn thing about! Are you paying attention to me yet? Look, I'm even suggesting that in space you can go down in your orbit without losing any energy, as if it worked the same as with airplanes!! I TROLL U!!!"
No, it really isn't. Losing money means you're poorer today than you were yesterday. Not-gaining money means you're no richer and no poorer. By your logic, you're "losing" the $20 in my pocket right now.
So by that logic if the guy who writes your pay check writes $20 off your pay check you're not losing anything, but if he's stealing $20 from your wallet then you're losing something. You're the dumbass who's arguing that the net effect for you isn't the same. Just drop the dumbass semantics.
If you've really created uncrackable DRM, why are you still writing software that only 300 people want? Media and software companies would pay billions for the secret of how to perfectly prevent copying. Why don't you sell it to them?
My sarcasm detector is tingling. I didn't write an uncrackable DRM, actually my program can be cracked under a minute. The thing is, in order to get the program, you need a serial number appended to your download link, and to get this you need to send me money. Theoretically someone who would have bought it could crack it and release it or not crack it but release it along with his license, but no one's done it so far despite 300 sales, so even if one day someone eventually warezes it it's no big deal. Actually I was gonna try to work on something harder to crack, but I was advised by people who've been there and done that that I'd lose more by wasting my time trying to prevent piracy than I'd lose by eventually getting pirated (don't even bother to argue that I wouldn't lose anything in either case, I got it). And I didn't get pirated despite this number of sales, much to my surprise. Actually someone even argued to me that pirating an old version of my program could improve my sales by improving my visibility (i.e. people try the old pirated version and want to buy the new one for its new features or whatever, give how an old full version does arguably less than even the (latest) demo version), I even gave the cracked version of the initial release for someone to leak it, but it didn't catch on and is nowhere to be found...
But there is no such thing. We still need people to write programs, so as long as we need new programs written, programmers will be able to make money by doing it.
No shit, tell me something I don't know.
Why should I care about maximizing your profits? The innovations you're missing are innovations in business model.
I accept your apology.
You still think that the valuable thing you provide is licenses, not labor. That's antiquated thinking. As copyright becomes harder and harder to enforce, and as your magically uncrackable DRM is revealed to be as flawed as every other scheme that's been tried, that antiquated thinking is not going to help you adapt to a world where you can't rely on selling copies.
Dude, Bill Gates is like the richest mother fucker on Earth, all from selling software, even though every single of his products get pirated before they're even released. Piracy isn't such a big deal when it comes to revenue, so it really doesn't threaten that business model unlike what you wishfully like to think.
And tell me, how am I supposed to be paid for my work when I haven't done any work yet, as you suggested? Oh wait, I already asked you for a real answer to that and you refused to answer under the pretence of apathy. More like because you have no fucking clue what should be done, your just pushing your bullshit ideology on me but when it comes to explaining how it can work for me and how it can make things better there's no one left to answer. So all the fuck you're doing is talking shit about what I do and insulting me and my work while you don't have any fucking clue what I could do better. So shut the fuck up.
Copyright is a time-limited, government-granted monopoly.
A monopoly on what, copyrights?
Then charge for the service of you developing it, not for the individual copies. As nearly the entire industry does today.
How the fuck is that supposed to work? Am I supposed to say "hey random people, I want to develop a program that does this and that. Please gather up $10,000 to give to me and in 6 months I'll give you the program in question"?
At least you do admit to being a troll.
Humm yeah, do you have signatures disabled or something? That's like a disclaimer right there.
Thing is, I don't *think* copyright should be eliminated so I can hardly argue for it here, it's just your arguments against it are pathetic and make the rest of us look like lazy, greedy bastards.
Who's talking about copyright? I wasn't, I never mentioned copyright, I talked about wanting everything for free.
Why would I? the standard "you pay, I write" model pays better, takes less work, and isn't threatened by basic human nature.
Who the fuck is supposed to pay me for something I haven't done yet? I don't know in what market that's supposed to work, but in my market (commercial audio apps for people who make music), it doesn't work this way at all, and no one does it this way.
Again, get a real job and stop crying about the 'dirty' pirates 'stealing' your work.
Again, wishful reading. How can I cry about people stealing my work when no one's stealing my work to begin with?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but it won't exempt you from considerations of distance and transport between your place of gathering/creating that energy and the places where people need it.
Oh God, when is this going to end. Just wondering, do you often make discussions drag the fuck on for like 20 replies, or are you doing something special for me? If stubbornness could win you arguments you'd have a shot at winning this one.
why should anyone buy a copy from you when they can get a copy for free from someone who's willing to share?
And we've come full circle, so I'll have to repeat what I've said in my earlier posts. because they can't find it anywhere else.
Charging for your labor, on the other hand, will still work just fine: they can't copy what hasn't been written, so if they want new software and no one will write it for free, they have no choice but to pay a programmer to write it.
Shut the fuck up, dumbass. No ones gonna pay you for you to do shit unless they're a company. I don't cater to companies, I cater to individual users, home and studio users.
Again, no one is demanding that you do anything for free. If no one is paying you to write code, and you don't feel like writing code for free, then don't write it.
God damn, how fucking dumb can you be? So your suggestion is, if you're not going to do things the ass backwards way I suggested of getting people to pay for the promise you might do something, then deprive yourself from making any money when you can make some? I've talked to a lot of stupid people on Slashdot, abysmal cretins, morons with delusions of intelligence, but out of them all you're the winner, because you don't only say stupid things, you dismiss any explanation of what's wrong with the stupid things you say and you keep repeating them in the hope they'll eventually stop being stupid. I say bravo!
One of three things will happen: they'll find someone else who does feel like writing code for free, or they'll pay you to write it, or they'll realize they don't need that code written after all.
OK imagine you're that Ford guy. Who's gonna pay you to build cars? Who's gonna build them cars for no profit? Who's gonna sit down and say "well who needs automobiles anyway"? Oh, what's that? That's not the way it works at all? What is it? First you build and market the cars and people decide whether or not they want to buy some and that's how it's worked for mostly anything since the dawn of time? Well what do you know!
Except that you need to get your electricity from the Death Valley to where it's needed, and a lot can get lost in the process, plus it costs infrastructure money.
*facepalm*. If you want something that looks like a woman and fucks like a woman, get your own crack whore. When you don't want to see her anymore just stop giving her crack/crack money.
This is why a male sex robot is fairly useless
Yeah, hence all the vibrators and dildos. Also, fuckingmachines. Doesn't look anything like a man but when it comes to sex with not a person then all women care about is mechanical action, not looks.
the tables will likely be turned, and in a big way
Huh, how??
Sort of. Well that's the only example of a 200-year investment I know of.
Hmmm, lots of people over 90 can't wait for death. Dunno how many, dunno whether it's because of their quality of life or because of how long it lasted, but I'd suggest you wait until you're 100 before you wish to live 100 times longer. It's like all those people in their 20s and 30s claiming that life is short. Maybe it is if you get hit by a mad truck at the age of 14, but some people out there have lived through WWI, I mean shit, even Zsa Zsa Gabor and Kirk Douglas are still alive. I wouldn't call their lives short. And maybe it's even less short if you get to do anything you could have done and accomplished in your life long before you die.
Instead of worrying about how long you live, perhaps you should worry about what you do with your life for the time you can conservatively expect it to last, so maybe on your deathbed you'll have no regrets and will be only looking forward to see what happens next. You might be surprised.
In this quick and dirty test, a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files.
It might have been pointed out before, but if they actually can tell the difference and prefer one from the other then it still means there's a difference. That they grew to like the artifacts due to MP3 compression is a different story from the fact we can actually tell the difference.
I submit that there is an excellent chance your program is worthless from an economic standpoint.
If it makes money (over $13,000 since January so far) then how does it make it economically worthless? I guess it only does only if you go "if X and Y and if Z then your program is worthless". Let's see if that's the way you go...
Unless you have done something that no one else on earth knows how to do, there is nothing stopping an open source developer from rewriting it and releasing it.
Well, what I did was fairly unique, and no one has rewritten it and released it, so what you're saying is "if an open source developer rewrote the exact same thing and released it for free then your program would be worthless". Yeah, that's a pretty big if.
Perhaps no one has done this yet—but to me, that means there isn't much demand for whatever you've done or it would have been a priority to the open source world.
So what you're saying is "your program must be worthless cause if it was worthy then someone would have taken the aforementioned steps to make it worthless". Makes you wonder how any software can be worth anything the way you view things. But again, if you were right my program wouldn't have made $13,000, which it did, so you're wrong that it's worthless, unless you have a definition for 'worthless' that somehow can be reconciled with "makes significant sums of money".
As I've argued in a post of mine you may have not read, open source is only able to compete with commercial programs when the appeal is, to developers, wide enough, and how feasible the task is to them. In my market, audio programs, there's very little FOSS software that compares with commercial programs, except for very trivial things that no one would pay more than $5 for. You can't even find a decent FOSS audio editor. So for something cutting edge like my program, I have little to fear, it's not just about anyone who could do something like this, and if they could they'd be stupid to give it up for free. And to use your style of self-proving argument, I'll submit that someone smart enough to write a program like mine wouldn't be stupid enough to release it for free ;-).
Just so you know what you're talking about, here's the program in question. The FOSS program that comes the closest is the FOSS project of mine it was based on, ARSS, which is a command-line utility, so yeah, doesn't really compare.
And I have a pretty good handle on the economic value given the fact that you're posting here on /. instead of skiing down an Alpine mountain while drinking Cristal and eating filet mignon.
You love arguments that magically prove themselves, don't you? I think the fact that John Carmack posts on Slashdot invalidates that, but I'm not rolling on gold either, although I do make a living off my program, which is in itself quite extraordinary considered what my program is and how not straightforward it is to convince people they need it (let alone pay for it).
Sure, there are outliers, but by and large people who accumulate a lot of wealth do so by creating value for society. I'm sure you can point to individual examples, but can you point to a significant demographic of the population that gets a lot for "doing much less"? I submit that you cannot...because if you could, there would be an influx of people wanting that job...salaries they could demand would go down, etc.
Dude, I work hard and make half the minimum salary. It won't be hard to find people who make ten times what I do while working less hard.
Look, if I tell you that I've created this epic application and I'll never update it or extend it or release it for others to work on or support it again, it's done for now and ever and nothing is ever going to happen with it from here on out, would you pay me for it?
I can tell you that even if you don't tell anyone that then no one will pa
Right, that's TOTALLY consistent with the entire discussion we've just had.
You, on the other hand, are incapable of considering anything other than what you're used to
No, I've considered your dumbass suggestions and deemed them stupid. You have yet to come up with an alternative course of action that even makes sense.
Yes, that's what you tell yourself. But of course you know it's not true, which is why you've become so insecure that you're punctuating every sentence with an insult.
lol, oh yeah? Well you're so insecure that you have to respond to my insults to you by claiming that I'm insecure so it reassures you. Or if you prefer, NO U!
If your claims can be believed, there are at least 300 people who benefit from the existence of your software and have demonstrated a willingness to pay for its development, so you can start with them. Or did you just make up that number?
None of them would have given a dime for the promise that eventually such a program would be made, mostly when nothing of it would exist to show what would exist. I mean seriously, how fucking stupid can you be to seriously think it could possibly work? And also, you want the same people who paid me to be able to use my work immediately to instead pay me, then wait months or a year, and finally getting to use what they paid for?? Really?? Just for the principle that I'd be 'paid for my labour' instead of 'paid for distributing'. Fucking moron, stick to typing code and stay away from any business aspect that pertains to marketing. You're just a cretin who because he gets paid to write code thinks that everything should work like this without any clue or regard for how things really work outside his tiny bubble. Clueless opinionated dumbass.
Heh, and to think you accuse me of putting words in your mouth just to argue against them.
Yeah well, what else was I supposed to infer from your suggestion? You sure can't be blamed for giving too many details.
Love the brown light next to your name, it reads 'Freak', it should rather read 'Butthurt' :D
It all comes down to how much you lose/fail to make. I don't know whether or not bad reviews would have worse an impact that piracy, it would probably depend on who does the bad review and how widespread the piracy.
And I'm not outraged over potential loss of revenue, I'm 'outraged' (although that's not the best term) that people would demand everything for free for the sake that it's supposedly the thing to do. Not only they but they insult my sense of business and even my work for not complying with their ideology that origins in trying to justify their greed and turning it into a moral higher ground.
Correct. One makes me a little less rich than I should be, the other actually makes me poorer.
Yep, still semantics, which all comes down to the same net result. So, I was right all along and you're a dumbass who likes to make bullshit arguments. And who obviously likes to make them drag the fuck on, I mean come on!
The difference between pay checks and software sales is that there actually is an answer to the question "how much should I be getting paid?", but there is no answer to "how many copies should I be selling?"
The difference is illusory, because practically lower odds of a sale are the same as being paid less money. That's the law of large numbers for you.
Is the reviewer stealing money out of your pocket?
Is your employer stealing money out of your pocket when they write $20 out of your pay check? Yep, dumbass rhetoric question that has no regard for net effects.
300 sales is hardly a big enough sample to conclude that your customers are less inclined to share your software than, say, Adobe's customers.
Moron, you'll put words in my mouth just for the sake of having something to argue, won't you? No one said anything about my customers being less inclined to pirate my software than Adobe's, only that at that point it proves that the problem of piracy isn't important enough for me to care.
I like posting on Slashdot to discuss things and troll at the same time, but let's face it, you're obviously a pretty stupid person, and you try to make up for your lack of intelligence and points to make with stubbornness. This conversation stopped being worthwhile a long time ago. How about you just drop it, I'm not interested in your ideology-fuelled suggestions on how to solve an inexistent problem and in the process make less money, or even your infeasible approaches to business, only making more money. See, you're just an armchair expert discussing things you have no first hand experience with, things which happen to be my business and livelihood. You're just wasting my time, I have little curiosity left for your worthless and misinformed opinions on how I should run my business.
You have a couple choices: you can get someone to promise you money beforehand, then you do the work, then you get the money. Or you can get someone to actually give you the money first, in exchange for your promise to do the work. Either way, if one of you holds up his side of the deal and the other doesn't, the other can sue for breach of contract.
And who on Earth in my specific market would pay for that? Let me guess, a software company that would then sell copies to individual users? Yeah, a middleman, that changes everything.
you're the one who started with the insults
Aduh, dumbass, I always start with insults, that's my arguing style. That's not the point, the point is all you did was talk shit and the little you did that wasn't insulting was stupid and short on practical details.
I'm explaining a business model that eliminates the problem of piracy. If you don't think piracy is a problem, then feel free to ignore it.
Like I said in my other post, it's not a problem. Maybe you'd know that if you actually dealt with the business side of things that deals with end users.
So, the machines' backdoor cannot be used by just about any hacker? Well good to know!
Put in a different way, that's as if you made a contest out of making people try to log through SSH into your machine, to prove that *you* can't log into it.
No, you're just subject to whatever's the opposite of misogyny. Have no fear, it's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism, and it's still politically correct to treat men like they're submen (or subwomen if that makes more sense).
You're right, you're no biologist, otherwise you'd know about XX males and XY females.
Oh yeah? Too bad you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Look up some links posted above in the discussion, the car/doll differences of preference even works with some apes.
And what the fuck is corolation?
Socialized Europe is seen as effeminate partly for this reason.
Effeminate? You mean macho, right? And what's this "Socialized Europe"? Whatever it could possibly be, it surely doesn't include Mediterranean countries, does it?
If there's one country in the world where wives symbolically cut off their husbands balls, it's in the USA. And it's nothing new, it already was like this in the 1950s, as could attest my French father who lived with Americans around that time. It's a national/cultural thing, women have more of a mommy role in married couples, whereas in Europe (or parts of it) if anything it's more like the man is the both, if not more of a daddy figure to the woman. So we don't take too kindly of Stay At Home Dads around here.
Yeah, in my country (France), they just make the smart ones skip a year and the ones who can't keep up (usually those who overall over the entire year scored less than 10 out of 20) repeat the year. By the time we reach graduation the vast majority of people have repeated a grade at least once, even I, who skipped the first grade. It works quite well like this.
"Hey guys, look at me, look at me! I'm talking about crap I don't know a goddamn thing about! Are you paying attention to me yet? Look, I'm even suggesting that in space you can go down in your orbit without losing any energy, as if it worked the same as with airplanes!! I TROLL U!!!"
No, it really isn't. Losing money means you're poorer today than you were yesterday. Not-gaining money means you're no richer and no poorer. By your logic, you're "losing" the $20 in my pocket right now.
So by that logic if the guy who writes your pay check writes $20 off your pay check you're not losing anything, but if he's stealing $20 from your wallet then you're losing something. You're the dumbass who's arguing that the net effect for you isn't the same. Just drop the dumbass semantics.
If you've really created uncrackable DRM, why are you still writing software that only 300 people want? Media and software companies would pay billions for the secret of how to perfectly prevent copying. Why don't you sell it to them?
My sarcasm detector is tingling. I didn't write an uncrackable DRM, actually my program can be cracked under a minute. The thing is, in order to get the program, you need a serial number appended to your download link, and to get this you need to send me money. Theoretically someone who would have bought it could crack it and release it or not crack it but release it along with his license, but no one's done it so far despite 300 sales, so even if one day someone eventually warezes it it's no big deal. Actually I was gonna try to work on something harder to crack, but I was advised by people who've been there and done that that I'd lose more by wasting my time trying to prevent piracy than I'd lose by eventually getting pirated (don't even bother to argue that I wouldn't lose anything in either case, I got it). And I didn't get pirated despite this number of sales, much to my surprise. Actually someone even argued to me that pirating an old version of my program could improve my sales by improving my visibility (i.e. people try the old pirated version and want to buy the new one for its new features or whatever, give how an old full version does arguably less than even the (latest) demo version), I even gave the cracked version of the initial release for someone to leak it, but it didn't catch on and is nowhere to be found...
But there is no such thing. We still need people to write programs, so as long as we need new programs written, programmers will be able to make money by doing it.
No shit, tell me something I don't know.
Why should I care about maximizing your profits? The innovations you're missing are innovations in business model.
I accept your apology.
You still think that the valuable thing you provide is licenses, not labor. That's antiquated thinking. As copyright becomes harder and harder to enforce, and as your magically uncrackable DRM is revealed to be as flawed as every other scheme that's been tried, that antiquated thinking is not going to help you adapt to a world where you can't rely on selling copies.
Dude, Bill Gates is like the richest mother fucker on Earth, all from selling software, even though every single of his products get pirated before they're even released. Piracy isn't such a big deal when it comes to revenue, so it really doesn't threaten that business model unlike what you wishfully like to think.
And tell me, how am I supposed to be paid for my work when I haven't done any work yet, as you suggested? Oh wait, I already asked you for a real answer to that and you refused to answer under the pretence of apathy. More like because you have no fucking clue what should be done, your just pushing your bullshit ideology on me but when it comes to explaining how it can work for me and how it can make things better there's no one left to answer. So all the fuck you're doing is talking shit about what I do and insulting me and my work while you don't have any fucking clue what I could do better. So shut the fuck up.
Copyright is a time-limited, government-granted monopoly.
A monopoly on what, copyrights?
Then charge for the service of you developing it, not for the individual copies. As nearly the entire industry does today.
How the fuck is that supposed to work? Am I supposed to say "hey random people, I want to develop a program that does this and that. Please gather up $10,000 to give to me and in 6 months I'll give you the program in question"?
At least you do admit to being a troll.
Humm yeah, do you have signatures disabled or something? That's like a disclaimer right there.
Thing is, I don't *think* copyright should be eliminated so I can hardly argue for it here, it's just your arguments against it are pathetic and make the rest of us look like lazy, greedy bastards.
Who's talking about copyright? I wasn't, I never mentioned copyright, I talked about wanting everything for free.
Why would I? the standard "you pay, I write" model pays better, takes less work, and isn't threatened by basic human nature.
Who the fuck is supposed to pay me for something I haven't done yet? I don't know in what market that's supposed to work, but in my market (commercial audio apps for people who make music), it doesn't work this way at all, and no one does it this way.
Again, get a real job and stop crying about the 'dirty' pirates 'stealing' your work.
Again, wishful reading. How can I cry about people stealing my work when no one's stealing my work to begin with?
I can say "hmmm for a mere 20 years of my life I can take X amount of years of theirs, after giving them a gruesome and painful death"
Well now that you mention it, it does sound like quite a bargain!