 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4bec5247$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>
> > When did that happen?
>
> Ah... 2005? Maybe? I'm not completely sure.
>
> > It either happened a decade ago, or the clerk was
> > really incompetent.
>
> It was definitely after 2000.
>
> > Most people don't see anything wrong in copying commercial software.
> > Not even if their attitude is put into doubt from a moral and ethical
> > point of view.
> >
> > What really grinds my gears with that kind of attitude is that it's
> > honest, paying customers who are paying for the software these people
> > are copying for free. These people may make up excuses in their minds
> > that they are just "stealing from a big rich company", when in fact what
> > they are doing is taking advantage of people who actually pay for the
> > software (and keep the "big rich company" alive).
> >
> > I buy software (mostly games, as everything else is open source), and
> > part of that money I have earned and use to buy this software goes into
> > paying for the people who steal the software. They are abusing *my* hard
> > earned money. And that pisses me off.
>
> Yeah, I dislike illegally copying anything. Like, given the choice
> between copying one of my dad's CDs or just buying one for myself, I'd
> rather go buy myself one.
>
> It still makes me slightly nervous that I have an illegal copy of
> Borland TurboPascal 5.5 for DOS. I mean, as if Borland is going to
> *care* any more...
Probably not, as it sold out its compiler tools to Embarcadero and got
bought out itself. I hardly need to buy software anymore except for a few,
and Delphi used to be one of them. For all else, there are free and OS
alternatives. I do think, however, programmers have shot themselves in the
foot with the free software movement. No other professional segment is
foolish enough to give away their work for free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> No other professional segment is
> foolish enough to give away their work for free.
Yeah, no other professional segment does things pro bono... Wait.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2010 8:26 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It still makes me slightly nervous that I have an illegal copy of
> Borland TurboPascal 5.5 for DOS. I mean, as if Borland is going to
> *care* any more...
I just found out last week that there is a free (even for commercial
use) explorer version. (<Borland> Embarcadero Turbo C++)
I think the link below is it.
http://altd.embarcadero.com/download/bcppbuilder/freecommandLinetools.exe
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2010 8:07 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8"<voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4bec5247$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
>>
>>> When did that happen?
>>
>> Ah... 2005? Maybe? I'm not completely sure.
>>
>>> It either happened a decade ago, or the clerk was
>>> really incompetent.
>>
>> It was definitely after 2000.
>>
>>> Most people don't see anything wrong in copying commercial software.
>>> Not even if their attitude is put into doubt from a moral and ethical
>>> point of view.
>>>
>>> What really grinds my gears with that kind of attitude is that it's
>>> honest, paying customers who are paying for the software these people
>>> are copying for free. These people may make up excuses in their minds
>>> that they are just "stealing from a big rich company", when in fact what
>>> they are doing is taking advantage of people who actually pay for the
>>> software (and keep the "big rich company" alive).
>>>
>>> I buy software (mostly games, as everything else is open source), and
>>> part of that money I have earned and use to buy this software goes into
>>> paying for the people who steal the software. They are abusing *my* hard
>>> earned money. And that pisses me off.
>>
>> Yeah, I dislike illegally copying anything. Like, given the choice
>> between copying one of my dad's CDs or just buying one for myself, I'd
>> rather go buy myself one.
>>
>> It still makes me slightly nervous that I have an illegal copy of
>> Borland TurboPascal 5.5 for DOS. I mean, as if Borland is going to
>> *care* any more...
>
> Probably not, as it sold out its compiler tools to Embarcadero and got
> bought out itself. I hardly need to buy software anymore except for a few,
> and Delphi used to be one of them. For all else, there are free and OS
> alternatives. I do think, however, programmers have shot themselves in the
> foot with the free software movement. No other professional segment is
> foolish enough to give away their work for free.
>
Yeah. It makes much more sense to do what all those "paid" people do,
which is publish something like a simple 2-3 function API for $200,
which some hobbyist can't fracking afford to buy 20 libraries, just to
do stuff that, yes, would take time to work out, but a) they would get
screwed over anyway, due to patents, if they published their own, and b)
would take, due to bad documentation, a lot of time to work out how to
manage. If you honestly don't think that is an issue, consider that I am
not talking about like.. buying a full application. I am talking about
someone writing 20 lines of fracking code, which just happen to be very
obscure, then selling it for $200, because they know that anyone else
trying to do it would take weeks, or months, trying to either
experiment, or hunt down what *vague* documentation exists on how to
actually use the feature of the OS in question.
In other words, we are talking about the equivalent of the guy that
invented the paper clip deciding to sell them at $200 a copy, instead of
2 cents. What is foolish is an industry which, at this point, costs you
20% of your profits, ***just*** to fend off "possible" litigation over
patents, with 10,000 more vague, imprecise, and possibly infringed in
the future, patents coming out **each day**. So, you had to pay out 20%,
the next guy, in 10 years, 30%, the next, in 20 years, 40%, etc., all
because they are vague, don't require a "physical" object to prove them,
are not properly reviewed, and there are already so many of the damn
things that it would take you 5 years to just search them all, if you
did **nothing else**, including write the software you intended to, but
had to do patent searches on *first*.
The FOSS people have even come up with a solution to this BS, straight
out of the cold war, "Mutually assured bankruptcy". If you plan to
patent everything in sight, we will start patenting everything it sight
too, and when its all over, we will see how many companies, including
ours, still exist, when we someone gets stupid, and we fire off all of
the patent nukes."
If we had had patents back during the original colonies, or earlier, it
wouldn't be Microsoft we would be complaining about, it would be
something like "East India Company", and the mess of patents involved
would, maybe, have made both world wars less likely, since those would
have undermines business, but we would be damn lucky if we where not
hearing headlines like, "5/16/2010: East India sues Hudson Bay over
Babbage patents, ENIAC project put on hold.", if we where **lucky**.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If we had had patents back during the original colonies, or earlier,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/16/2010 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> If we had had patents back during the original colonies, or earlier,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
>
Let me rephrase... If they had the kind of idiot patents we now see in
Software, where you can make it stupidly vague, describe a set of
instructions, rather than a physical thing, then sue everyone that even
*sort of* does the same thing...
Good example, from the video. You have two data sets. Say X1, X2, X3.
One is liking pets, second is "affectionate", third is.. I don't know,
favorite color = red. You also also have the same data from someone
else, Y1, Y2, Y3. You then so a fairly uncomplicated comparison on them.
Nope, no patent here. Now.. ***Name*** the variables, say, Zip, Zop, and
Zap. Put out a patent that says, "Comparing Zip, Zop and Zap to find
"compatibility" between individuals with those traits, and suddenly it
**is** patentable. You named them after all, which, according to the
argument that led to most of this BS, makes the process "unique", not
just basic fracking boolean math on a matrix of values.
This is how damn stupid things are right now. And, if you make it vague
enough, you get some damn silly lawsuits, and people actually *winning*,
or getting settlements, on the basis of such nonsense. You can't produce
an inexpensive alternative to product X, if simply marketing it means
you have to spent a million dollars to pay off all the people that show
up to say, "Heh! We think that falls under out patents!"
Its irrelevant that, at one time, patents actually worked. Since they
didn't allow the kinds of patents, until ****very recently****, that we
see in software.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-5-2010 22:19, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 5/16/2010 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> If we had had patents back during the original colonies, or earlier,
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
>>
Typical example of WIME (Wikipedia Is Your Enemy). You are not supposed
to make claims that are factually wrong, not even jokingly, not even if
everybody understands what you mean :(
> Let me rephrase... If they had the kind of idiot patents we now see in
> Software, where you can make it stupidly vague, describe a set of
> instructions, rather than a physical thing, then sue everyone that even
> *sort of* does the same thing...
>
> Good example, from the video. You have two data sets. Say X1, X2, X3.
> One is liking pets, second is "affectionate", third is.. I don't know,
> favorite color = red. You also also have the same data from someone
> else, Y1, Y2, Y3. You then so a fairly uncomplicated comparison on them.
> Nope, no patent here. Now.. ***Name*** the variables, say, Zip, Zop, and
> Zap. Put out a patent that says, "Comparing Zip, Zop and Zap to find
> "compatibility" between individuals with those traits, and suddenly it
> **is** patentable. You named them after all, which, according to the
> argument that led to most of this BS, makes the process "unique", not
> just basic fracking boolean math on a matrix of values.
>
> This is how damn stupid things are right now. And, if you make it vague
> enough, you get some damn silly lawsuits, and people actually *winning*,
> or getting settlements, on the basis of such nonsense. You can't produce
> an inexpensive alternative to product X, if simply marketing it means
> you have to spent a million dollars to pay off all the people that show
> up to say, "Heh! We think that falls under out patents!"
>
> Its irrelevant that, at one time, patents actually worked. Since they
> didn't allow the kinds of patents, until ****very recently****, that we
> see in software.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Good example, from the video.
That was a stupid video. Giving them names isn't what made it patentable.
That's like saying "Mixing together chemicals to get a new chemical isn't
patentable. But specifying *what* chemicals you mix together *is*
patentable! How stupid is that?"
The patentable part wasn't "describing the data and mixing it together." The
patentable part was "determining compatibility".
Just like "discrete log isn't the patentable part. Using it to do public key
encryption is the patentable part." You can still use discrete log for any
other purpose.
Now, granted, the patent system may or may not be working. But that video is
disingenuous in describing *what* part of the system is patented.
I have a patent on sending email. It's for sending email in a certain
pattern for a certain purpose. That doesn't mean sending email is patented.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/17/2010 3:02 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Good example, from the video.
>
> That was a stupid video. Giving them names isn't what made it patentable.
>
>
> That's like saying "Mixing together chemicals to get a new chemical
> isn't patentable. But specifying *what* chemicals you mix together *is*
> patentable! How stupid is that?"
>
> The patentable part wasn't "describing the data and mixing it together."
> The patentable part was "determining compatibility".
>
> Just like "discrete log isn't the patentable part. Using it to do public
> key encryption is the patentable part." You can still use discrete log
> for any other purpose.
>
> Now, granted, the patent system may or may not be working. But that
> video is disingenuous in describing *what* part of the system is patented.
>
> I have a patent on sending email. It's for sending email in a certain
> pattern for a certain purpose. That doesn't mean sending email is patented.
>
Whether you agree with the video or not, the fact is, often the patents
are not much *less* vague that the sentence you just used to describe
them, and, they are damn close to unlimited, in a medium where half of
them may be of little or no use at all within 5 years. Mind, that
assumes they are specific. Its possible for one to be vague enough that
they apply to thing they where never intended to, thus "accidentally"
making them still useful. Its practically what is intended at this point.
And, no, as the video points out, as long as you don't use the "same"
data, or the same names, you could, more or less, do the same thing.
There are more than one site using "compatibility" stuff like it, they
just are not using the same "specific" ones. Which makes it even more
damn silly. Because, in this case, you accidentally stumble over the
exact same criteria, you infringe? Oh, wait, sorry.. You would have had
to a) read about, b) visited their site, or c) otherwise been anything
but fracking completely blind, and therefor even remotely aware that
they had a patent, and what it covered, to "infringe". So.., how exactly
do you avoid infringing, with that kind of stacked deck? Give me a break.
You may disagree if the video got it 100% right, but you have to
seriously be a narcissist to fail to grasp that the system has changed
recently, and that everyone *except* the companies with huge stock piles
of patents, see them as a detriment (and even a few that do have them
see them as a pain in the ass too), and its precisely because of the
mind field like nature of how many there are, and how they are both
written and interpreted, *as well as* how little effective review takes
place in determining if they should even be provisionally approved, let
alone made official.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> OK, so how many of you are thinking "hmm, that sounds like me" right
>> now? ;-)
>
> **me too**
>
> It's unfortunate, though, that large corporations in the modern world don't have
> MORE Babbage types working for them (with the freedom to keep pushing for
> changes and improvements); it sure would eliminate lots of bad products from
> entering the marketplace--cars, software, etc. Taking the time to actually get
> it 'right' in the first place seems to be a lost philosophy, among many
> companies...whether due to economic constraints or whatever. Something Babbage
> apparently didn't have to worry about.
>
> Of course, Babbage types need *some* constraints, imposed from
> outside--otherwise, we'd *never* get anything done. It's a tricky trade-off.
There is a line, and it's not always a fine one, between "broken" and
"could be better." Too many companies let things that are clearly
broken (or would be clearly so if they bothered to look) out the door
because doing nothing pays off now, whereas doing something pays off
later. It represents a basic refusal to make doing right by the
customer the first principle of business.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
