So you claim that not a single Adobe Photoshop has ever been pirated on a system instead of being payed for?
No. I don't even know how that could be inferred from what I wrote.
I never claimed that the loss would be big. I completly agree with the grandparents assesment of the 1:1 sale to piracy ratio being insane.
For the record, I am the GP.
Of course, the argument used by some overly enthuiastic pirates would be that piracy also stimulate sales. However, that is a strawman argument.
I don't disagree. In fact, even though I don't engage in piracy myself, the only reason for piracy I would accept as not disingenuous would be piracy as a form of protest. I'm not saying I condone or endorse such thing, but I do think it can be logically and morally consistent.
Actually, there is a way in which piracy can prove directly profitable to a company, and that is the snowball effect.
I'm not interested in such distinctions. I'm not advocating piracy or its arguable potential merits. I'm only saying that the rhetoric and tactics used by the pro-IP crowd are deployable; and since my livelihood falls under the same rubric I feel entitled to do so.
Lucky for you the rest of the world doesn't work like your job does.
Hardly.
IP is bullshit, plain and simple. No other consumer industry on the planet works like it and that's why there's so much damn piracy. And there will be until the "IP" world understands consumer sales: You sell it once, and that's that.
Again, no.
The difference here, and in the rest of your examples, is that I can't replicate the work of a plumbing job an astronomical number of times for almost no cost. That's why there's an "I" in "IP". And don't try to pretend that just because you can't pick it up and throw it it doesn't have real value.
It's also not what's being said except by people wanting to stir rhetoric. What's being said is they're criminals.
Incorrect.
For one example recollect the article posted here about the BSA making a singular point about software piracy being linked to decreased tax revenue.
Disgusting as in "they're criminals and shouldn't be doing that" or disgusting as in "those criminals are getting they're feelings hurt? Couldn't tell.
Piracy will however cause lost profit compared to if piracy was impossible.
I, most emphatically, disagree.
Let's take the classic example: Photoshop.
I'd wager that nearly everyone who's above the age of 25 and has a computer has had a pirated copy of some version. Mainly, because they thought:
"COOL! I want photoshop."
They then launched it once, couldn't figure out what to use it for, and then forgot about it.
In my opinion, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for the case that the above situation cost Adobe any money whatsoever.
To put it plainly: go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut*.
I, personally, pay for all the software I use, music I listen to, and movies I watch; despite the fact that I have the technical chops to crack whatever I'd want.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I make my money in software; and, by extension, "IP". Ergo, I want to be paid for my work and I think others should be too.
However.
And, that's a big "HOWEVER", I do not accept the rhetoric, propaganda, and evil litigiousness of the software lobby. The idea that everyone who illegally uses a copy of some software product is either: a danger to society, an irretrievable thief, a tax cheat, or a supporter of terrorism is obscene.
The most disgusting part of this, to get back to the point of my original point, is that all the aspersions cast upon those who engage in such piracy notwithstanding, they still wouldn't have paid for "it" anyway.
So, in the end, draconian laws and mindsets are being fostered for no morally, or fiscally, sound reason.
Such doom/gloom FUD encourages investors to flee, bringing the FUD to fruition.
There is only one case where fleeing investors, and thus dropping stock prices, affects a company: if they need to issue more stock to raise more capital.
Other than that the stock price doesn't hurt the company since it's already been sold (during the IPO).
Maybe then we wouldn't have software vendors taking weeks, months or years to patch remotely exploitable bugs (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Microsoft)
Sure you would; and the blame for any damage would be blamed on who made the disclosure.
There is nothing wrong with how this was/is being handled. Limited disclosure with a solid and "reasonable" deadline is a perfectly fine way to balance the myriad issues with security threats.
This issue may be huge. But without all the necessary information, you can't make an informed decision as to whether or not you believe it is.
That same information that allows you to make an "informed decision", as you so blithely put it, puts the integrity of the entire infrastructure and, more to the point, the information security of a whole lof of people at tremendous risk.
Dammit, that's the whole point of the OP's observation and why people argue about disclosure in the first place.
Your point is well taken, but I don't know that I'd go as far to say that effort is meaningless, at least intrinsically.
For example, I do feel that the willingness to put out high levels of effort to achieve a goal can be a sign of what I'd consider to be good character.
That said, I do think that your assertion about who values effort and why is spot on.
Define "working hard". Then please illustrate why it should be the highest standard.
Especially since you bring up "genetic lottery". If succeeding for certain people in certain endeavors is effortless, does that make their successes any less valuable?
And how about the ancillary benefits to talented individual's achievements:
If Salk didn't find it difficult to find a polio vaccine would that diminish its utility?
If Homer just sat down and bashed out the Illiad in a weekend does that lessen it value?
While I personally laud "hard work", this idea of elevating effort over value smacks of the Protestant Work Ethic run amok.
Immaterial except in terms of extreme expressivity or extreme speed, respectively.
In most normal cases, it shouldn't matter except as a matter of preference or possibly development time.
"dynamic vs strong dynamic vs static typing"
I prefer strong-dynamic.
However, if someone who knows the differences between strong-dynamic/weak-dynamic/strong-static/weak-static has a contrary opinion, I'll respect it; even if I disagree.
I can't decide which is worse, this particular bit of idiocy or the all-to-common: "dynamic vs strong typing" arguments.
Actually, maybe I'm being to hasty.
The conflation of runtime implementation details with language capabilites, or the above-mentioned typing confusion, does provide a quick and easy way to tell that someone doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
That strategy only worked for Gandhi because the British were basically civilized. It wouldn't work so well against, say, the Khmer Rouge.
It's hard to say what the case is here.
So you claim that not a single Adobe Photoshop has ever been pirated on a system instead of being payed for?
No. I don't even know how that could be inferred from what I wrote.
I never claimed that the loss would be big. I completly agree with the grandparents assesment of the 1:1 sale to piracy ratio being insane.
For the record, I am the GP.
Of course, the argument used by some overly enthuiastic pirates would be that piracy also stimulate sales. However, that is a strawman argument.
I don't disagree. In fact, even though I don't engage in piracy myself, the only reason for piracy I would accept as not disingenuous would be piracy as a form of protest. I'm not saying I condone or endorse such thing, but I do think it can be logically and morally consistent.
Actually, there is a way in which piracy can prove directly profitable to a company, and that is the snowball effect.
I'm not interested in such distinctions. I'm not advocating piracy or its arguable potential merits. I'm only saying that the rhetoric and tactics used by the pro-IP crowd are deployable; and since my livelihood falls under the same rubric I feel entitled to do so.
Lucky for you the rest of the world doesn't work like your job does.
Hardly.
IP is bullshit, plain and simple. No other consumer industry on the planet works like it and that's why there's so much damn piracy. And there will be until the "IP" world understands consumer sales: You sell it once, and that's that.
Again, no.
The difference here, and in the rest of your examples, is that I can't replicate the work of a plumbing job an astronomical number of times for almost no cost. That's why there's an "I" in "IP". And don't try to pretend that just because you can't pick it up and throw it it doesn't have real value.
It's also not what's being said except by people wanting to stir rhetoric. What's being said is they're criminals.
Incorrect.
For one example recollect the article posted here about the BSA making a singular point about software piracy being linked to decreased tax revenue.
Disgusting as in "they're criminals and shouldn't be doing that" or disgusting as in "those criminals are getting they're feelings hurt? Couldn't tell.
Nice try Tiny SnapDragon.
Piracy will however cause lost profit compared to if piracy was impossible.
I, most emphatically, disagree. Let's take the classic example: Photoshop.
I'd wager that nearly everyone who's above the age of 25 and has a computer has had a pirated copy of some version. Mainly, because they thought:
"COOL! I want photoshop."
They then launched it once, couldn't figure out what to use it for, and then forgot about it.
In my opinion, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for the case that the above situation cost Adobe any money whatsoever.
I'm afraid I can't agree on that basis.
I certainly agree that word-of-mouth goodwill is important, as is the goodwill of "influential" users (such as yourself).
But I am still of the opinion that people should pay for what the use. I only refuse to accept the hyperbole of "IP" vendors and their propagandists.
To put it plainly: go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut*.
I, personally, pay for all the software I use, music I listen to, and movies I watch; despite the fact that I have the technical chops to crack whatever I'd want.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I make my money in software; and, by extension, "IP". Ergo, I want to be paid for my work and I think others should be too.
However.
And, that's a big "HOWEVER", I do not accept the rhetoric, propaganda, and evil litigiousness of the software lobby. The idea that everyone who illegally uses a copy of some software product is either: a danger to society, an irretrievable thief, a tax cheat, or a supporter of terrorism is obscene.
The most disgusting part of this, to get back to the point of my original point, is that all the aspersions cast upon those who engage in such piracy notwithstanding, they still wouldn't have paid for "it" anyway.
So, in the end, draconian laws and mindsets are being fostered for no morally, or fiscally, sound reason.
*Thanks to Kurt Vonnegut for that vignette.
...if such a mindset would only dispell the myth that a every pirated copy equates to one lost sale.
Such doom/gloom FUD encourages investors to flee, bringing the FUD to fruition.
There is only one case where fleeing investors, and thus dropping stock prices, affects a company: if they need to issue more stock to raise more capital.
Other than that the stock price doesn't hurt the company since it's already been sold (during the IPO).
This has nothing to do with any specific vendor or open source.
This issue is about how and when independent researchers disclose a vulnerability they find.
What does any of that have to do with the process or are you implying that disclosure policy is nothing to be concerned about?
Maybe then we wouldn't have software vendors taking weeks, months or years to patch remotely exploitable bugs (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Microsoft)
Sure you would; and the blame for any damage would be blamed on who made the disclosure.
There is nothing wrong with how this was/is being handled. Limited disclosure with a solid and "reasonable" deadline is a perfectly fine way to balance the myriad issues with security threats.
This issue may be huge. But without all the necessary information, you can't make an informed decision as to whether or not you believe it is.
That same information that allows you to make an "informed decision", as you so blithely put it, puts the integrity of the entire infrastructure and, more to the point, the information security of a whole lof of people at tremendous risk. Dammit, that's the whole point of the OP's observation and why people argue about disclosure in the first place.
I certainly must agree that Feingold is an exception.
Dayum, for exactly the reason you mention. That guy's a real mensch.
Would that there were more like him.
Not one party... no parties.
Hear hear!
I don't disagree, especially with Kucinich...perhaps I should've said "(presumptive) nominees" instead of candidates.
If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.
That probably goes for any letter, but those two in particular.
Technical terminology is kept to a minimum thus not requiring a lot of prior knowledge.
Is that really supposed to be a selling-point for this crowd?
Your point is well taken, but I don't know that I'd go as far to say that effort is meaningless, at least intrinsically.
For example, I do feel that the willingness to put out high levels of effort to achieve a goal can be a sign of what I'd consider to be good character.
That said, I do think that your assertion about who values effort and why is spot on.
Define "working hard". Then please illustrate why it should be the highest standard.
Especially since you bring up "genetic lottery". If succeeding for certain people in certain endeavors is effortless, does that make their successes any less valuable?
And how about the ancillary benefits to talented individual's achievements:
If Salk didn't find it difficult to find a polio vaccine would that diminish its utility?
If Homer just sat down and bashed out the Illiad in a weekend does that lessen it value?
While I personally laud "hard work", this idea of elevating effort over value smacks of the Protestant Work Ethic run amok.
You shouldn't get an award because of your genes, but because of the work you put in. According to who? And why?
Actually, I shouldn't be arguing; if you're correct then I should be able to get a Nobel Prize just by trying really hard.
'Recently, Chris DiBona, Open Source Programs Manage at Google Inc, encouraged people to: "Think of RepRap as a China on your desktop."'
Win32 is simple...
Win32 only looks simple when compared to Win16.
"scripting vs compiled"
Immaterial except in terms of extreme expressivity or extreme speed, respectively.
In most normal cases, it shouldn't matter except as a matter of preference or possibly development time.
"dynamic vs strong dynamic vs static typing"
I prefer strong-dynamic.
However, if someone who knows the differences between strong-dynamic/weak-dynamic/strong-static/weak-static has a contrary opinion, I'll respect it; even if I disagree.
Jesu effing Christo.
One thing ain't got nothing to do with the other.
I can't decide which is worse, this particular bit of idiocy or the all-to-common: "dynamic vs strong typing" arguments.
Actually, maybe I'm being to hasty.
The conflation of runtime implementation details with language capabilites, or the above-mentioned typing confusion, does provide a quick and easy way to tell that someone doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.