...Copying is not stealing. Doesn't have to be, but it usually is. Look kid. I've been in the software business since the 80s and seen what works and what doesn't. Allowing working copies of your software is profitable marketing if you happen to have the word "Microsoft" as your corporate name and sell mostly to businesses in the USA and/or Europe. Emperically, it just doesn't work most of the time. Sorry, I have no idealism left at all on this one. Just experience and reality. Allow your software to be freely copied and nobody will pay you for it. Feel free to query a few thousand ISVs who went broke that way. And feel free to send me examples of folks who put together small software packages that could be copied without limit and made any money. Red Hat does it by selling services and configuration and I know some individuals who make their living configuring open source, but these are few and far between and a lot of the ones I know are struggling.
FYI, yes you can use the cloud quite effectively to reduce most piracy, though not all. You don't want to stop *all* of it. It's no more cost-effective to do that than to try and prevent two people from using the same computer or reading the same book. But you do have to minimize the ease of doing so, so that it's easier to buy than steal.
What I was suggesting doesn't work like that. You're confusing it with server based software. With hosted Windows applications, pieces of the app are locally downloaded as needed into a minimal OS that runs like a local app. I'm sure there's some performance hit, but one purpose of the architecture is to minimize this.
which is about what oil contributes energetically, each year, to the world's economy, and NOT create an ecological catastrophe or starve everyone in the 3rd world, please do get back to me on that. In the meantime, I suggest you review a summary of the numbers regarding the energy situation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil.
It must be nice on your planet. I mean, not having to make a profit and having fair minded customers.
Here on Earth, people will steal whatever they can get their hands on if they think they need it and it's relatively easy to do without consequence. Granted, some vendors are unusually proud of their software and a charge of $10,000 for it may be far more in value than anyone gets out of the software. These folks need to re-evaluate their price point. This is tricky, however. If your market size is small, say 3000 users total, you may have to charge that much to pay development staff a decent wage and keep the lights on. That's just the economics of software. Niche market software is always more expensive and has to be. Ultimately, customers should be able to decide if your software is worth that much. If they can get it for free, of course, that process is totally short-circuited.
What the original poster should do is move the application to the cloud where it can be run in a browser. For legacy applications, spoon.net or Application Jukebox will do this with a minimum of hassle and expense. Hosting your application in this way basically makes it unhackable and controls licensing. Then let the market decide on the price.
You're right, for now. In fact, you're right for the last century or two. Fossil fuels are not bad. Had fossil fuels not existed, we would have denuded the landscapes of the world of trees as surely as the Easter Islanders did. Fossil fuels, in a seeming paradox, have delayed ecological disaster.
Unfortunately, with a population of 7 billion plus and not so much oil left with better than a 10:1 energy return ratio, I think "delayed" is the operative word here.
who are just speeding up evolution in action. Seriously. Some dimwit with a degree from Phoenix "university" who works in human resources thinks he/she's competent to make a medical decision? I feel bad for the children, but stupidity is hereditary.
The "heartland" institute's money trail leads back to the Koch-roaches (or their ilk) and their ongoing attempts to break up the USA into something more easily harvested and ruled? Just askin'
Question: If there's life on Mars and we find out in 50 years instead of 20, what are the practical implications? Answer: Nada. Zip.
Question: If we can't figure out how to reversibly cool the planet, or get enough concentrated solar energy to use as a substitute for oil an coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil), what happens? Answer: A great unpleasantness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#Implications_of_a_world_peak), possibly fatal to 5 out of every 6 people or more by the end of the century.
Near Earth orbit efforts have to take priority over exploratory efforts for a while. There's time for exploration after we've averted our own self-made disasters.
Assume Mars has life. Assume we learn about it in 50 years rather than 20. Practical implications? Zero.
Assume we run out of energetically and economically profitable oil in 50 years (or less). Practical implications? A certain unpleasantness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#Implications_of_a_world_peak) involving a population bottleneck that has the potential to starve 5 out of 6 humans, worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil) or thereabouts.
Priority? Energy or Space Exploration. Hmmm, let me see...
A 5% increase, devoted mostly to energy research would make sense. Diverting all money from the Mars/Moon budget would certainly help. Near Earth orbit is research. Until we have a money-positive, energy positive use for the moon or Mars, they're hubris and nothing more.
2) Software is a servant, not an equal or a master. Software is the waiter. Don't put behavior in your software that you wouldn't accept in a restaurant.
The most aggravating and common user interface fails to avoid are:
1) Interruptions (e.g. Microsoft dialogs telling you updates have been installed, as if you give a rat's ass, refreshing a window or dialog that doesn't appear to need to be refreshed, being too helpful and hovering like Clippy).
2) Being ignored (Clicking or typing on screen and watching nothing happen).
There are, of course, many other transgressions, but most of them can be addressed by thinking through a restaurant example. If the waiter came and rearranged your dishes and silverware in the middle of your meal, you'd be furious. If the OS comes in and rearranges your screen while you're working, taking away your focus, you'll be furious. If the waiter keeps ignoring you or is slow, you get angry. If the OS keeps ignoring you, or gets slow, you get angry.
There are thousands of things you can do to improve an interface, but miss this stuff and you fail.
The King James? The Eastern Orthodox? The Coptic? Hebrew? Syriac? Which apocrypha will be in or out? Will they charge extra for those? Get back to me on that, willya?
While not completely self-sustaining in content, those stupid little cartoon religious tracts that get left on bus stops would qualify as a sustainable self replicator. The form is is the sustainable feature as it parasitically takes ideas from the larger virus (i.e. the bible) for replication.
You have software with expected behaviors. First you verify that behaviors occur. If they don't, you have a fail. You formulate a theory as to what might cause the fail and you test to see if you can reproduce it. If you can consistently create the fail, you report it to development, who may fix it if it's severe enough. It's somewhat analogous to scientific method, albeit writ small.
That's the box top explanation. In practice, of course, it's *much* more complicated.
Computers are stupid, much like the folks at IBM that conceived this idea. In the end, all programming metrics are subjective.
Low scoring (i.e. few commits): A new, unique and briliant algorithm that models molecular interaction 10000x more accurately and only requires 10 lines of code and some trivial unit tests.
High scoring (i.e many commits): Changing the labels in 1000 dialog boxes to correct for proper case, making a commit for every 10 changes.
There is simply no way, absent of meaningful artifical intelligence, to measure whether the changes were difficult or meaningful. And, sorry to say, guys, Watson isn't there yet.
Kids sued for thousands for downloading a song or a movie? Attempts to impose our electronic rule in other countries? The potential for political information suppression?
Slashdot Mirror
...Copying is not stealing.
Doesn't have to be, but it usually is. Look kid. I've been in the software business since the 80s and seen what works and what doesn't. Allowing working copies of your software is profitable marketing if you happen to have the word "Microsoft" as your corporate name and sell mostly to businesses in the USA and/or Europe. Emperically, it just doesn't work most of the time. Sorry, I have no idealism left at all on this one. Just experience and reality. Allow your software to be freely copied and nobody will pay you for it. Feel free to query a few thousand ISVs who went broke that way. And feel free to send me examples of folks who put together small software packages that could be copied without limit and made any money. Red Hat does it by selling services and configuration and I know some individuals who make their living configuring open source, but these are few and far between and a lot of the ones I know are struggling.
FYI, yes you can use the cloud quite effectively to reduce most piracy, though not all. You don't want to stop *all* of it. It's no more cost-effective to do that than to try and prevent two people from using the same computer or reading the same book. But you do have to minimize the ease of doing so, so that it's easier to buy than steal.
What I was suggesting doesn't work like that. You're confusing it with server based software. With hosted Windows applications, pieces of the app are locally downloaded as needed into a minimal OS that runs like a local app. I'm sure there's some performance hit, but one purpose of the architecture is to minimize this.
which is about what oil contributes energetically, each year, to the world's economy, and NOT create an ecological catastrophe or starve everyone in the 3rd world, please do get back to me on that. In the meantime, I suggest you review a summary of the numbers regarding the energy situation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil.
Legacy Windows apps can be hosted on spoon.net or via Application Jukebox. Your app is essentially unhackable and license control is all yours.
It must be nice on your planet. I mean, not having to make a profit and having fair minded customers.
Here on Earth, people will steal whatever they can get their hands on if they think they need it and it's relatively easy to do without consequence. Granted, some vendors are unusually proud of their software and a charge of $10,000 for it may be far more in value than anyone gets out of the software. These folks need to re-evaluate their price point. This is tricky, however. If your market size is small, say 3000 users total, you may have to charge that much to pay development staff a decent wage and keep the lights on. That's just the economics of software. Niche market software is always more expensive and has to be. Ultimately, customers should be able to decide if your software is worth that much. If they can get it for free, of course, that process is totally short-circuited.
What the original poster should do is move the application to the cloud where it can be run in a browser. For legacy applications, spoon.net or Application Jukebox will do this with a minimum of hassle and expense. Hosting your application in this way basically makes it unhackable and controls licensing. Then let the market decide on the price.
You're right, for now. In fact, you're right for the last century or two. Fossil fuels are not bad. Had fossil fuels not existed, we would have denuded the landscapes of the world of trees as surely as the Easter Islanders did. Fossil fuels, in a seeming paradox, have delayed ecological disaster.
Unfortunately, with a population of 7 billion plus and not so much oil left with better than a 10:1 energy return ratio, I think "delayed" is the operative word here.
Now I have to write up the bug report. Who do I submit it to again?
who are just speeding up evolution in action. Seriously. Some dimwit with a degree from Phoenix "university" who works in human resources thinks he/she's competent to make a medical decision? I feel bad for the children, but stupidity is hereditary.
I can't even commit to paper or plastic and now you want me to deal with *this?*
The "heartland" institute's money trail leads back to the Koch-roaches (or their ilk) and their ongoing attempts to break up the USA into something more easily harvested and ruled? Just askin'
Question: If there's life on Mars and we find out in 50 years instead of 20, what are the practical implications?
Answer: Nada. Zip.
Question: If we can't figure out how to reversibly cool the planet, or get enough concentrated solar energy to use as a substitute for oil an coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil), what happens?
Answer: A great unpleasantness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#Implications_of_a_world_peak), possibly fatal to 5 out of every 6 people or more by the end of the century.
Near Earth orbit efforts have to take priority over exploratory efforts for a while. There's time for exploration after we've averted our own self-made disasters.
Assume Mars has life. Assume we learn about it in 50 years rather than 20. Practical implications? Zero.
Assume we run out of energetically and economically profitable oil in 50 years (or less). Practical implications? A certain unpleasantness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#Implications_of_a_world_peak) involving a population bottleneck that has the potential to starve 5 out of 6 humans, worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil) or thereabouts.
Priority? Energy or Space Exploration. Hmmm, let me see...
A 5% increase, devoted mostly to energy research would make sense. Diverting all money from the Mars/Moon budget would certainly help. Near Earth orbit is research. Until we have a money-positive, energy positive use for the moon or Mars, they're hubris and nothing more.
While I despise liberals, libertarians and conservatives in about equal measure, his comments and observations are accurate.
1) Software is a conversation. Be polite.
2) Software is a servant, not an equal or a master. Software is the waiter. Don't put behavior in your software that you wouldn't accept in a restaurant.
The most aggravating and common user interface fails to avoid are:
1) Interruptions (e.g. Microsoft dialogs telling you updates have been installed, as if you give a rat's ass, refreshing a window or dialog that doesn't appear to need to be refreshed, being too helpful and hovering like Clippy).
2) Being ignored (Clicking or typing on screen and watching nothing happen).
There are, of course, many other transgressions, but most of them can be addressed by thinking through a restaurant example. If the waiter came and rearranged your dishes and silverware in the middle of your meal, you'd be furious. If the OS comes in and rearranges your screen while you're working, taking away your focus, you'll be furious. If the waiter keeps ignoring you or is slow, you get angry. If the OS keeps ignoring you, or gets slow, you get angry.
There are thousands of things you can do to improve an interface, but miss this stuff and you fail.
Yes, it would be most inspiring to read the bible in the original Klingon.
The King James? The Eastern Orthodox? The Coptic? Hebrew? Syriac? Which apocrypha will be in or out? Will they charge extra for those? Get back to me on that, willya?
While not completely self-sustaining in content, those stupid little cartoon religious tracts that get left on bus stops would qualify as a sustainable self replicator. The form is is the sustainable feature as it parasitically takes ideas from the larger virus (i.e. the bible) for replication.
That's why the good lord invented GUI scripting systems.
You have software with expected behaviors. First you verify that behaviors occur. If they don't, you have a fail. You formulate a theory as to what might cause the fail and you test to see if you can reproduce it. If you can consistently create the fail, you report it to development, who may fix it if it's severe enough. It's somewhat analogous to scientific method, albeit writ small.
That's the box top explanation. In practice, of course, it's *much* more complicated.
...in the same sentence. Wait, isn't that kind of an oxymoron? OK, forget the oxy part.
Computers are stupid, much like the folks at IBM that conceived this idea. In the end, all programming metrics are subjective.
Low scoring (i.e. few commits): A new, unique and briliant algorithm that models molecular interaction 10000x more accurately and only requires 10 lines of code and some trivial unit tests.
High scoring (i.e many commits): Changing the labels in 1000 dialog boxes to correct for proper case, making a commit for every 10 changes.
There is simply no way, absent of meaningful artifical intelligence, to measure whether the changes were difficult or meaningful. And, sorry to say, guys, Watson isn't there yet.
Still waiting for cars with decent mileage, people willing to use their brains, a rational energy policy and no-TSA travel...
There, fixed that for you.
Kids sued for thousands for downloading a song or a movie? Attempts to impose our electronic rule in other countries? The potential for political information suppression?
Yes, let's discuss "unfair."
I guess now they are least half-witted.