Searching \ for 'Cracked[becomes OT] [WAY OT!]' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=
Search entire site for: 'Cracked[becomes OT] [WAY OT!]'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Cracked[becomes OT] [WAY OT!]'
1998\11\12@024822 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
To claim that one should give away software for free, and make money on
"support", "because it's a service economy" is equivilent to denying that
creativity has value - instead postulating that only labor has value.

This is evil.

It was the major mistake of the communist realm not to understand that
wealth can be CREATED from mere thought.  Assuming that there is a fixed
amount of wealth in the world, and trying to figure out how to divide it
up "fairly", is a task doomed to failure.  Instead, build a society that
encourages the creation of NEW wealth.

BillW

1998\11\12@044327 by Sedlak Alex

flavicon
face
Bill Westfield wrote:

               > To claim that one should give away software for free, and
make money on
               > "support", "because it's a service economy" is equivilent
to denying that
               > creativity has value - instead postulating that only labor
has value.

               > This is evil.

Wouldn't go as far as "evil", but there certainly is something  wrong with
the
"service oriented" attitude.

In such scenario, software authors would put themselves
out of business by trying to write easy to use and bug free software.

You're most likely to end up with "free" software that contains built-in
"bugs" and
"undocumented features" that are there for the sole purpose of generating
support service revenue.

.... a particularly successful software firm comes to mind, except their
product
isn't free in the first place, and their support service is rather lousy.

I would much rather pay my money up-front for a product that is developed
for
reliability and ease of use, rather than trickling my money and TIME on the
phone,
listening to hours of 'elevator-music' and dealing with clue-less support
staff.

The way I see it, a company providing free bug-reporting and
difficulty-support service
is likely to be genuinely interested in developing a robust and decent
product. If you
don't pay for their software, they'll go under, and you're going to be left
with "free" rubbish
that will NEVER work quite right.

Over time, only the software firms that make money will survive, as
programmers and
software engineers (still) eat food, wear clothes, drink wine, etc....    We
- the
end users, determine which software firms survive, by our buying/cracking
habits.
It's the survivor product that we are going to be stuck with in the future.


Kind regards,

Alex

spam_OUTasedlakTakeThisOuTspamgpupowernet.com.au



PS:   GNU is an exceptional gem!!!    ....ever thought about what makes GNU
go???
        (I'm more than happy to admit that GNU, in a way, demolishes my
argument)

PSS:  Communism may look good on paper, but it has(and will) failed dismally
when
         applied/enforced in society.

1998\11\12@130843 by Reginald Neale

flavicon
face
>To claim that one should give away software for free, and make money on
>"support", "because it's a service economy" is equivilent to denying that
>creativity has value - instead postulating that only labor has value.
>
>This is evil.
>
>It was the major mistake of the communist realm not to understand that
>wealth can be CREATED from mere thought.  Assuming that there is a fixed
>amount of wealth in the world, and trying to figure out how to divide it
>up "fairly", is a task doomed to failure.  Instead, build a society that
>encourages the creation of NEW wealth.
>
>BillW

Does anyone know who said this:

"The free enterprise system is founded upon the fundamental conviction that
free men cannot be induced to produce things of service or value unless
there is an incentive."

Reg Neale

1998\11\12@132523 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> To claim that one should give away software for free, and make money on
> "support", "because it's a service economy" is equivilent to denying that
> creativity has value - instead postulating that only labor has value.
>
> This is evil.
>
> It was the major mistake of the communist realm not to understand that
> wealth can be CREATED from mere thought.  Assuming that there is a fixed
> amount of wealth in the world, and trying to figure out how to divide it
> up "fairly", is a task doomed to failure.  Instead, build a society that
> encourages the creation of NEW wealth.

 I mosty aggree with this, but I'd like to add that a service and
information based society is not among the ones that create a lot of real
wealth. A lot of virtual wealth but not the real kind, or very little of
it. Apparently societies in the phase of expansive capitalism are the ones
that generate the most tangible wealth, at the level of the average
individual.. There remains to be seen what this (and the virtual wealth of
post-industrial capitalist states) leads to. I am not sure that I want to
find out in this lifetime. I certainly don't like the things coming up
nowadays on the stock markets and in other domains. This is way way way
OT.

Peter

1998\11\12@172943 by Sedlak Alex

flavicon
face
To:     pic microcontroller discussion list
Subject:        RE: Cracked[becomes OT] [WAY OT!]



Bill Westfield wrote:

               > To claim that one should give away software for free, and
make money on
               > "support", "because it's a service economy" is equivilent
to denying that
               > creativity has value - instead postulating that only labor
has value.

               > This is evil.

Wouldn't go as far as "evil", but there certainly is something  wrong with
the
"service oriented" attitude.

In such scenario, software authors would put themselves
out of business by trying to write easy to use and bug free software.

You're most likely to end up with "free" software that contains built-in
"bugs" and
"undocumented features" that are there for the sole purpose of generating
support service revenue.

.... a particularly successful software firm comes to mind, except their
product
isn't free in the first place, and their support service is rather lousy.

I would much rather pay my money up-front for a product that is developed
for
reliability and ease of use, rather than trickling my money and TIME on the
phone,
listening to hours of 'elevator-music' and dealing with clue-less support
staff.

The way I see it, a company providing free bug-reporting and
difficulty-support service
is likely to be genuinely interested in developing a robust and decent
product. If you
don't pay for their software, they'll go under, and you're going to be left
with "free" rubbish
that will NEVER work quite right.

Over time, only the software firms that make money will survive, as
programmers and
software engineers (still) eat food, wear clothes, drink wine, etc....    We
- the
end users, determine which software firms survive, by our buying/cracking
habits (among
many other things that influence the industry).
It's the survivor product that we are going to be stuck with in the future.


Alex

.....asedlakKILLspamspam@spam@gpupowernet.com.au



PS:   GNU is a gem!!!
        (I'm more than happy to admit that GNU, in a way, demolishes my
argument)

PSS:  Communism may look good on paper, but it has(and will) failed dismally
when
         applied/enforced in society...

1998\11\12@185738 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
>Instead, build a society that
>encourages the creation of NEW wealth.
>
>BillW

Capitalism is not the solution, as it proves everyday;
Like paying huge amount of money to companies that steal from our children??
Reources that have taken a thousand million years to accumulate like oil,
coal minerals uranium etc?  And not care about the poisoning effects?
And why do people earn different just because they "sit on different chairs"?
etc...

We must have the visions leading us, although we all at the same time
depend on money, money, money  (Groan)

/Morgan
       Morgan Olsson                   ph  +46(0)414 70741
       MORGANS REGLERTEKNIK            fax +46(0)414 70331
       H€LLEKS           (in A-Z letters: "HALLEKAS")
       SE-277 35 KIVIK, SWEDEN               mrtspamKILLspaminame.com
___________________________________________________________

1998\11\12@194046 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
Enough.  Reminds me of of the summary:

In the capitalistic system of ecconomic development, man exploits man.
In communism, it is the other way around.

BillW

1998\11\12@223952 by Mike Sauve

flavicon
face
At 04:38 PM 11/12/98 PST, William Chops Westfield wrote...
>Enough.  Reminds me of of the summary:
>
>In the capitalistic system of ecconomic development, man exploits man.
>In communism, it is the other way around.

Except in the communal system, one can not choose to opt out.

Mike

1998\11\13@041936 by Caisson

flavicon
face
> Van: Sedlak Alex <.....asedlakKILLspamspam.....GPUPOWERNET.COM.AU>
> Aan: EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Onderwerp: Re: Cracked[becomes OT] [WAY OT!]
> Datum: donderdag 12 november 1998 10:24

<Snip>

> Over time, only the software firms that make money will survive, as
> programmers and software engineers (still) eat food, wear clothes,
> drink wine, etc....

As you put it delicately : Only a firm that makes money will survive.  A
form that makes a solid product will sell that product just _once_.  And,
within a short time the consumer-market will become saturated.  Hence : no
product will be sold from that point on.  This in turn will mean the demise
of the firm that made the product.

Two options :
1) Search for a new product to sell (quite difficult as PHILIPS showed
again & again)
2) Make sure the consumer-marked never gets saturated.  That can be done by
creating a  product that will be "consumed".

And so it is done.  A bike form 30 years ago will be in good condition, but
a bike from 5 years ago has to be replaced any moment now.


In short : We are degraded to "consumer beasts".  Trapped in our behaviour
by the need to produce, thus gaining an income ...

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

> PSS:  Communism may look good on paper, but it has(and will) failed
dismally
> when applied/enforced in society.

Capitalism also failed. It is applied/enforced the same way. If you don't
have any money, you don't have got a life.  So you have got to run the
Rat-race that is called "Consume, consume & consume MORE".

1998\11\13@053130 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> Enough.  Reminds me of of the summary:
>
> In the capitalistic system of ecconomic development, man exploits man.
> In communism, it is the other way around.

Or to put it more specifically re: a democracy, with or without ""s:

All men are equal but there are always some who are more equal than the
others.

Peter

1998\11\13@093951 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
I've REALLY REALLY been biting my tonque on this one, but no more!

>Reources that have taken a thousand million years to accumulate like oil,
>coal minerals uranium etc?  And not care about the poisoning effects?

Do you realize that the fossil fuels MUST have been deposited very rapidly
(like within MONTHS for coal and DAYS for petroleum) for them to have
formed in the first place?  That these dissipate in THOUSANDS of YEARS (not
millions) into the surrounding bedrock unless removed by man?

>And why do people earn different just because they "sit on different chairs"?
>etc...

If you don't like to earn money, there's an alternative - welfare.

I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day.  It said, "WORK HARD - THERE
ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON WELFARE DEPENDING ON YOU!"

>We must have the visions leading us, although we all at the same time
>depend on money, money, money  (Groan)

Last time I checked, taxes were mandatory.  A government PRODUCES nothing,
yet CONSUMES vast quantities of resources.  Perhaps a better solution would
be to drastically reduce GOVERNMENT so that THE PEOPLE are free to pursue
their interests.

Wasn't Marx living in a capitalistic society?  Where did he get the wealth
to live the lifestyle HE lived?

Capitalism may not be perfect, but it sure beats the domination required of
communism.  If you prefer a communist society, I'm sure you could move to
China.  If you prefer to live in a socialistic society, stay in Europe (for
the most part).  If you want to live totally free, move to Tahiti.
Everybody else is welcome in America.  Just don't try to change us!

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\13@141710 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
I don't like getting involved in a discussion that is so far OT, but
I can't let this one pass without comment.

Morgan Olsson <mrtspamspam_OUTINAME.COM> wrote:
> Capitalism is not the solution, as it proves everyday;
> Like paying huge amount of money to companies that steal from our children??

Could you please explain this?  I'm not aware that I pay any money to
companies that steal from children.

> Reources that have taken a thousand million years to accumulate like oil,
> coal minerals uranium etc?  And not care about the poisoning effects?

Communist/socialist countries don't have any better record on depletion
of resources and environmental impact thereof.  Evidence suggests that
the former USSR actually had more problems of this nature than the US,
although neither has done well.  This problem seems to be somewhat
independent of the economic system.

> And why do people earn different just because they "sit on different=
>  chairs"?

Because some skills are more in demand than others.

So you would maintain that a highly skilled engineer should be paid the
same as the boy in the mailroom?  You're going to get fewer highly skilled
engineers that way.

And to turn this argument on its tail, why should anyone (read: the
government) be allowed to tell me that I *CAN'T* pay someone more than
a standard amount, if I think that they provide a more valuable service?

The best explanation of economic systems in layman's terms that I've ever read
is P.J. O'Rourke's recent book _Eat the Rich_.  I'd strongly suggest reading
it before making wild claims about how terrible capitalism is.  And yes, the
book does show the failures of capitalism as well as the successes.  The
chapter on Sweden (titled "Good Socialism") might be particularly instructive.

For a fictional/allegorical lesson on why socialism is bad, read
_Atlas Shrugged_ by Any Rand.  It shows very clearly why the "From each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy
of socialist economics is not just untenable but actually evil.

For the two sentence summary:  if I were to be paid the same amount for
flipping burgers or developing PIC firmware, I'd pick flipping burgers.
It's a lower-stress occupation, and I'd only have to work 8 hours a day.
That would give me more time to pursue my personal interests.

Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's better than all the other systems.

Eric

1998\11\13@144209 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   For the two sentence summary:  if I were to be paid the same amount for
   flipping burgers or developing PIC firmware, I'd pick flipping burgers.
   It's a lower-stress occupation, and I'd only have to work 8 hours a day.
   That would give me more time to pursue my personal interests.

Really?   To try to push this SLIGHTLY more on topic....

It has occured to me that the high tech industry (and especially computers
and software) has succeeded in achieving its dramatic improvments in
cost/performance by EXPLOITING those technical experts that love their work
so much that they gladly put up with unpaid overtime, poor working
conditions (cubes), extreme stress, etc, etc.  I suppose their were once
machinists and such in that class, but mass production and unions made them
into "hobbyists"...

If computer software had been "professionalized" ala medicine or law, or
unionized ala piecework in 1960 or so, where do you think the computer
industry would be today?

BillW

1998\11\13@152533 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
I wrote:
> For the two sentence summary:  if I were to be paid the same amount for
> flipping burgers or developing PIC firmware, I'd pick flipping burgers.
> It's a lower-stress occupation, and I'd only have to work 8 hours a day.
> That would give me more time to pursue my personal interests.

BillW wrote:
> Really?   To try to push this SLIGHTLY more on topic....
>
> It has occured to me that the high tech industry (and especially computers
> and software) has succeeded in achieving its dramatic improvments in
> cost/performance by EXPLOITING those technical experts that love their work
> so much that they gladly put up with unpaid overtime, poor working
> conditions (cubes), extreme stress, etc, etc.  I suppose their were once
> machinists and such in that class, but mass production and unions made them
> into "hobbyists"...

I do enjoy working in the computer industry, but I'm frustrated that work
leaves me too burned out to spend much time on personal projects.  I've
decided that it may be a mistake to try to have both work and play based
on the same field of endeavor.

However, there is no other field of endeavor for which my skills will
command a sufficient salary to maintain my lifestyle.

So in the hypothetical socialist case where I would get paid the same
amount of money for flipping burgers, I'd gladly take that.  The work wouldn't
be very rewarding (in non-monetary terms), but when I got home I wouldn't
feel as opposed to playing with a computer.

Of course, in reality this wouldn't work.  If we switched to that socialist
system, some of the engineers (like me) would switch to unskilled labor,
while almost none of the unskilled laborers would suddenly become engineers.
With fewer engineers to produce them, the number of types of nifty computer
gadgets that are developed would necessarily go down, and so I would have
substantially less choice of high-tech toys to play with in my spare time.

Unless the socialist country imported the high-tech toys from a capitalist
country...  Hmmm... but what would we export to them?

No, I'd definitely prefer to continue being EXPLOITED by the greedy
capitalist system.

Eric

1998\11\13@154208 by Octavio Nogueira

flavicon
face
>Capitalism may not be perfect, but it sure beats the domination required of
>communism.  If you prefer a communist society, I'm sure you could move to
>China.  If you prefer to live in a socialistic society, stay in Europe (for
>the most part).  If you want to live totally free, move to Tahiti.
>Everybody else is welcome in America.  Just don't try to change us!
>                         ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>Andy
>
>==================================================================
>Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
>==================================================================

I've just packed my stuff, what is your address Andy ?  ;-)

Octavio
==============================================
Octavio Nogueira - @spam@nogueiraKILLspamspampropic2.com ICQ# 19841898
  From the creator of ProPic,   ProPic 2  now much better
    New ProPic 2 homepage:    http://www.propic2.com
   PIC Programmer for Windows with down to earth price
==============================================

1998\11\13@161042 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>If computer software had been "professionalized" ala medicine or law, or
>unionized ala piecework in 1960 or so, where do you think the computer
>industry would be today?

The same place as the plumbing industry - in the toilet!

I think there ought to be some genuine thought given to SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING, but that it be on a discipline level.  DBA's don't give a
squat about the hardware, nor do I care about what GUI somebody's using.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\13@174020 by Reginald Neale

flavicon
face
>
>If computer software had been "professionalized" ala medicine or law, or
>unionized ala piecework in 1960 or so, where do you think the computer
>industry would be today?
>


And why do you think it DIDN'T happen for the software industry?

Reg

1998\11\13@181902 by Edward Nedeliaev

flavicon
face
Andy Kunz wrote:
<snip>
> A government PRODUCES nothing, yet CONSUMES vast quantities of resources.
> Perhaps a better solution would be to drastically reduce GOVERNMENT so that
> THE PEOPLE are free to pursue their interests.
<snip>
> ==================================================================
> Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
> ==================================================================
       Anarchy?  :-)

1998\11\16@034444 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Eric Smith wrote:

--- [ snip ] ---
>
> For a fictional/allegorical lesson on why socialism is bad, read
> _Atlas Shrugged_ by Any Rand.  It shows very clearly why the "From each
> according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy
> of socialist economics is not just untenable but actually evil.
>
In fact, socialism has never claimed to follow that philosopy. They said,
they are building a society changing to communism in the future, and that
system will working based on that theory. Only for the sake of exactness.

Imre

1998\11\16@084433 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 01:06 AM 11/14/98 +0300, you wrote:
>Andy Kunz wrote:
><snip>
>> A government PRODUCES nothing, yet CONSUMES vast quantities of resources.
>> Perhaps a better solution would be to drastically reduce GOVERNMENT so that
>> THE PEOPLE are free to pursue their interests.
><snip>
>        Anarchy?  :-)

Not necessarily - human government was the first institution created after
marriage, so it isn't all bad.

We just need LESS of it than we have now.

Andy


==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\19@131212 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> Enough.  Reminds me of of the summary:
>
> In the capitalistic system of ecconomic development, man exploits man.
> In communism, it is the other way around.

Or to put it more specifically re: a democracy, with or without ""s:

All men are equal but there are always some who are more equal than the
others.

Peter

1998\11\19@133821 by Caisson

flavicon
face
> Van: Sedlak Alex <KILLspamasedlakKILLspamspamGPUPOWERNET.COM.AU>
> Aan: RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Onderwerp: Re: Cracked[becomes OT] [WAY OT!]
> Datum: donderdag 12 november 1998 10:24

<Snip>

> Over time, only the software firms that make money will survive, as
> programmers and software engineers (still) eat food, wear clothes,
> drink wine, etc....

As you put it delicately : Only a firm that makes money will survive.  A
form that makes a solid product will sell that product just _once_.  And,
within a short time the consumer-market will become saturated.  Hence : no
product will be sold from that point on.  This in turn will mean the demise
of the firm that made the product.

Two options :
1) Search for a new product to sell (quite difficult as PHILIPS showed
again & again)
2) Make sure the consumer-marked never gets saturated.  That can be done by
creating a  product that will be "consumed".

And so it is done.  A bike form 30 years ago will be in good condition, but
a bike from 5 years ago has to be replaced any moment now.


In short : We are degraded to "consumer beasts".  Trapped in our behaviour
by the need to produce, thus gaining an income ...

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

> PSS:  Communism may look good on paper, but it has(and will) failed
dismally
> when applied/enforced in society.

Capitalism also failed. It is applied/enforced the same way. If you don't
have any money, you don't have got a life.  So you have got to run the
Rat-race that is called "Consume, consume & consume MORE".

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...