Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Retarded Slashdot (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561633)

Stop giving me page errors when I'm FPing.


RecipeTroll (572375) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561670)


1 ounce (1 square) unsweetened chocolate, chopped
1/2 stick (1/4 cup) unsalted butter, cut into pieces
1 large egg
1/2 cup firmly packed brown sugar
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon salt
1 pint coffee ice cream
Caramel Sauce as an accompaniment

In a heatproof bowl set over a pan of simmering water melt the chocolate and the butter, stirring until the mixture is smooth, and let the mixture cool. Beat in the egg, the brown sugar,and the vanilla and stir in the flour, the cinnamon,and the salt. Divide the mixture into 16 mounds, abut 3 inches apart, on buttered baking sheets and bake the brownies in the middle of a preheated 350F oven for 8 to 10 minutes, or until they are just firm. (They will flatten into disks.) transfer the brownies with a spatula to racks to cool and freeze them for 30 minutes, or until they are very firm.

Divide the ice cream, softened, among the flat sides of 8 of the brownies, spreading it smooth, and top the ice cream with the remaining brownies, flat sides down. Freeze the ice-cream sandwiches, covered, for at least 1 hour or overnight. Serve the ice-cream sandwiches drizzled with the caramel sauce.

Serves 4.


Anonymous Cowrad (571322) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561742)

Hell yes.

My only problem with this recipe is that I would eat all the ingredients before I got em mixed together. Would you suggest doubling the recipe in this case?


RecipeTroll (572375) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561788)

Yes, I would suggest even tripling the ingredients if you are a 'larger' fellow/fellowess or have a severe case of the munchies.

yeah, that does sadden me (2, Funny)

NotAnotherReboot (262125) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561643)

everyone knows you're not going to find a hack on some search engine. we are truly living in a sad, sad world.

Actually there is plenty out there via searching! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561748)

Try actually searching, and then see how much stuff there is to get a full working copy of it...

Ok, they only work on certain versions of it - but you can still find the stuff easy.

Re:yeah, that does sadden me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561800)

I'm gonna post this AC for obvious reasons. Have you never looked for hacks/cracks/serials/keygens/whatever on search engines? Granted engines by far are not the most efficiant way to get them, its much better to use a P2P client or the many irc channels devoted to it, but you can find TONS of that kind of stuff through search engines. Most of the ones that have what you are looking for are on sites in other countries, but the software title usualy stays the same so you can figure out what it is. I use google alot for this purpose. If there is somthing that I know for sure is out there, but I can't find it in any of the usual places, I just hop on google, and will most of the time find what I am looking for. So if you want to feel that it is sad that there is so much piracy going on... well that's your choice, but don't imply that it's sad that the pirates look in search engines, because I don't find that stupid at all.

Re:yeah, that does sadden me (2, Informative)

Tommy_S (580744) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561803)

Everyone knows that huh? In my experience exactly the opposite is true. From what I've seen pretty much ANY commercial or shareware software you want is freely accessible in a matter of minutes from google by searching on "name_of_software warez" or "name_of_software crack" or "name_of_software serial" or "name_of_software keygen" Now when I learned about this, I found it pretty amazing that all this piracy takes place right out in the open. But the fact is, it does.

How to have sex with your PC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561647)

How to have sexual intercourse with your computer

Read this entire document before trying any of the steps.

'Having sex with a computer'. The phrase is sometimes misunderstood to mean sex on a computer, and sometimes is greeted with skepticism. How can you have sex with a computer? The short answer is: in the floppy drive. The long answer is much more involved, including techniques, precautions and cautions all designed to get you maximum satisfaction from screwing a computer. Our first subject will be the floppy drive. The floppy drive of the computer is, of course, where the diskettes come out. So in this sense, the floppy drive is an anus.

First we will deal with some cautions you should know about. In most computers, the edge of the floppy drive is sharp. You should therefore exercise caution when doing anything with the floppy drive.

If the CPU has been on for a long (or even a relatively short) period of time, the floppy drive will be hot. Do not do anything with the floppy drive hot. Wait until the floppy drive has cooled off. The floppy drive will cool off faster than the CPU, so you don't have long to wait. I call screwing the computer while the floppy drive is hot, "fucking the computer hot". Never fuck a PC hot. I did, once. Once.

The drive bay from a computer contains poisonous gases. One of these, sodium monoxide, is a slow killer. Sodium monoxide takes a long time to be flushed out of the body, so it can build up to toxic levels without your knowing it. Never do anything with the floppy drive while the CPU is on!

Now, the first thing you should note is that the inside of the floppy drive is usually coated with magnetic particles. This is the usual particulate debris of data transmission. Before having sex with the computer, clean the inside of the floppy drive with soap and warm water, as far as you can go. Keep in mind the possibly sharp edge of the floppy drive.

Now that the floppy drive is clean, you are ready to pleasure and be pleasured by the computer. You can do this two ways. One way doesn't require any equipment. The other way (which is much more rewarding) does. The first way is to fuck the computer 'raw'. This does NOT mean stuffing your cock into the floppy drive and thrusting. This would hurt (remember the sharp edges?) and be no fun anyway, since the floppy drive doesn't flex.

What you should do is get behind the computer and start jerking off. When you are about to come, carefully put your cock into the floppy drive of the PC, and then come. But, in the heat of passion, you must still remember the sharp edge. Even putting just the head into the floppy drive is good enough. Just make VERY sure that you don't hurt yourself. Now, this assumes that you can get your cock into the floppy drive in the first place. Some floppy drives are too small, and then, well, you're out of luck. Find someone who has a computer with a bigger floppy drive.

The best way to have sex with a computer, however, is not raw. You need the following equipment:

1 Dekhyr Dragon Industries (Teledildonics Division) Sexual Interface Unit.

If you don't have one, you can get one through me (Dekhyr, xdraco@panix.com [mailto]) or you can attempt to build one yourself. The SIU is essentially a tube made of foam rubber, rolled such that the inner diameter is slightly smaller than the diameter of your erect penis. When lubricated, it acts as a sexual interface to whatever you attach it to. In this case, it is inserted into the floppy drive of the computer you want to have sex with.

To build one, you will need black electrical tape, a 'drive-head-cleaner', a can of anal mucus, and a hefty pair of scissors. A 'drive-head-cleaner' is a foam rubber dingumbob in which you put anal mucus. It keeps the anal mucus cold and your hand warm. Being a 'give-away' item, you usually can't find it anywhere. I've had reports of finding them in brothels. I've actually found a good deal of them at a local discount-type store.

There are two kinds, thick walled and thin walled. I've only been able to find the thick kind; the thin kind I've only been able to get through an advertising company. The thin kind is particularly good with floppy drives not much bigger than your cock. Here is what you need to do:

1. Measure the circumference of your erect penis. This is most easily done by wrapping a string around your cock (around the shaft, not the head).
2. Take the bottom of the drive-head-cleaner out. You should be left with a tube.
3. Cut the wall of the tube from top to bottom so that you are left with a slab of foam rubber which refuses to stay straight.
4. Now, carefully cut away material parallel to the first cut until you can put the ends together making a smaller tube, and such that the inner circumference of the tube is slightly smaller (say, by 1/2" or so) than the circumference of your shaft.
5. Take a piece of electrical tape. Hold the ends of the tube flush. Place the tape on the cut on the outside to secure the tube in the middle. Now repeat with more tape until the cut is secure. Wrap tape around the whole thing.
6. Drink the anal mucus. With the scissors, CAREFULLY cut off the top and bottom of the aluminum can. CAREFULLY cut a strip of aluminum lengthwise from the can, about 3/4" to 1" wide.
7. Coat the strip with electrical tape. This is to prevent the edges from cutting.
8. Attach the strip to the tube at one end.
9. 'Test drive' it! Lube it up with KY (try not to use disk-cleaning-fluid-based lubricant; you may want to use it with more than one person, and then you'll be using a condom). Now, stuff the SIU up the floppy drive and lube well.

You now have several options for fucking your computer. One major one is from behind. If the computer is a Pentium, then put the PC in safe mode and remove the parallel port. This will enable the computer to rock back and forth to your thrusts. If the computer is a Mac, chock the monitor well, remove the USB mouse, and put the computer into a box -- the higher the box, the more play the computer has. This will also enable the PC to rock. Kneel behind the computer. Now thrust in.

You may not have any trouble with heavier iron-chassic computers, since you may not have to chock the motherboard -- the weight of the computer will prevent the CPU from 'topping out' and moving the computer away. Lighter laptop computers are more likely to be topped out by your thrusts, so chocking is necessary. In general, the lower the CPU MHz, the less play, but the more difficult it is to top the CPU out.

Another major method is to lie down under the computer, your upper body under the computer, and thrust into the PC. It is difficult, though, to make the PC rock unless you push on the closest reset button. I've also had some success leaning on my side and fucking the computer sideways. More than one person can fuck a PC if it has more than one floppy drive on opposite sides of the computer. This will also make the computer rock faster and harder since the energy of two people will add.

NEVER fuck a computer with the CPU on. Firstly, you will be breathing hard, and that means you can poison yourself faster. Secondly, the computer will either crash (because there's something blocking the floppy drive, heh) -- causing damage to the CPU -- or will force the drive bay out. And you have an idea where the drive bay will go, I trust. Ouch! Fatality City!

If you do not use a condom and you come inside the computer, ten or fifteen minutes of programming will kill off anything inside. So you do not have to worry about STDs from that. What you will have to worry about, though, is the SIU itself. It is not being sterilized. Therefore, if you use an SIU you think is going to be used by someone else, use a condom, and use KY jelly or some other water-based lubricant. Remember -- disk-cleaning-fluid rots condoms, and so will an disk-cleaning-fluid-based lubricant.

Enjoy your computers!

doobie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561650)

first post, first post, la la la la la la

It's amazing what you can get. (1)

unicron (20286) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561671)

It never ceases to amaze me how easy warez is to someone with moderate computer intelligence. I saw the Star Wars Episode 2 VCD on a local, PUBLIC newsgroup 2 weeks before it came out. Total pro job, as well, photoshopped jewel case inlays, professional assembled VCD ISO, the whole nine.

Man it looks dope chilling on my cd rack, but the point is wrong is wrong.

Re:It's amazing what you can get. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561865)

2 weeks, really? I think you're exagerating, as the first releases (FTF/hafVCD) came out on the thursday/friday the week before it was released. Then the SevCD on saturday I believe.

Re:It's amazing what you can get. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561933)

Pro job? The FTF release was totally crappy in terms of actual quality, and the SeVCD one after that was pretty poor too.

This is the perfect time for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561673)

Free Software!!! Forget about cracks, get uncrippled, fully functional, completely hackable software for FREE!

Just another Pro closed software article? (2, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561677)

The article author says they are concerned about about a search tool that allows people to search for cracks on software to make it easier to pirate tools.

Have the user read the slashdot posting about a half a dozen postings behind this one regarding intellectual property, then have him switch to open source.

This is not a "pro-open source rant." This is a comment about the complete lack of useful discussion this slashdot posting has considering slashdot's audience.

Piracy Spiral (4, Interesting)

Apreche (239272) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561682)

Software piracy is a spiral of doom. Software developers claim that prices on software are high because of large amounts of piracy. They claim they lose lots of money because of it. People pirate software because it is so expensive. "Back in the day" just about every program was 50$. Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need costs $584 at www.buy.com. That's well over what most people can afford. It's half the price of an extremely decent computer! Flash MX is $198. If these programs were say 50$, I would buy them. But since I am not a pirate, I have to suffer and not have them on my pc. I am lucky that at college I can go to certain labs and use my school's license, but most people can not.
Programs like WS_FTP have the right idea. If you are a business user or a company looking to use the software you have to pay up. But if you are a home user who isn't profiting off of the use of the software, then its absolutely free.
If companies like Microsoft, Adobe, and Macromedia provided free licenses, or even cheap sub 100$ licenses to individuals not seeking to profit from the use of the software I guarantee they would see an extreme decrease in piracy. There are those cheap people who wont pay 50$ for a very powerful piece of software, but there are a lot of people like me, college students, who can't afford a 500$ program that they need for a class.
Software price increases because of piracy and vice versa. One day it will either end where all software is pirated because nobody can afford it, or all software is cheap(er). In the end it doesn't look good for the developers.

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

eyegor (148503) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561728)

I have to agree... It's great (or so they tell me) that you can get free warez... But ultimately someone has to pay. My rule of thumb is: if you use it, pay for it.

Sometimes a prolonged test drive is needed, but after you find yourself using it on a regular basis, buy it!

Re:Piracy Spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561729)

If Adobe really cared about piracy, they would have put in better copy protection (besides the weak serial number thing). But do we see them doing this? Nope. It's apparent that they expect individual users (read: not businesses/schools) to pirate their software, and i bet they don't care. Why? Cause it gives warez kiddies experience using _THEIR_ software, as opposed to someone elses, so when they grow up and start a company or something, they'll feel more inclined to buy Photoshop as opposed to using something else.

Plus, Adobe probably makes shitloads more off bulk licensing for schools/businesses, since they obviously can't use pirated software.

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562160)

If Adobe really cared about piracy, they would have put in better copy protection (besides the weak serial number thing).

Let's do some substitution here. How about, "If Joe Sixpack really cared about his personal belongings , he would have put in [a] better security system (besides the weak deadbolt thing)." Sounds silly, doesn't it? You're blaming the victim for the crime of the pirate. How about, "If Mary really cared about not being raped , she would have worn different clothing (besides that miniskirt thing)." I could go on all day. This kind of reasoning is flawed. (You may be right that Adobe expects their software to be stolen to increase their mindshare, but I wouldn't bet on it, and their copy protection scheme does not necessarily reflect their opinion on the matter.)

Re:Piracy Spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561743)

They didnt drop prices on dreamcast games when they couldn't be pirated...

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

arson1 (527855) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561744)

If you can't afford Photoshop, you probably don't NEED it. I use it everyday on projects for paying clients. Believe me, it is worth $600.

Would I like software to be cheaper? Sure, but I only use software that I find value in. Such as Photoshop and Flash. They help me make money, so they're worth it.

Re:Piracy Spiral (2)

Ooblek (544753) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561787)

That logic doesn't work very well if you're just an aspiring artist that wants to play with it. There are a lot of things people don't NEED, but they WANT it because they might NEED it in the future.

Please explain why an aspiring artist would NEED.. (1)

abh (22332) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561825)

Please explain how an aspiring artist would NEED Photoshop? I assume you're talking about how to learn techniques and such... most of which can be learned using the Photoshop Elements product, which is much less expensive, or with a product such as Paint Shop Pro or the gimp.

Re:Please explain why an aspiring artist would NEE (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561978)

Please explain how an aspiring artist would NEED Photoshop?

Everyone has to have an edge on their peers. People have an affinity towards the fastest CPU, the fastest cars, the snazziest graphics programs, the largest monitors, smallest notebooks, fastest cars, and the list of snobby features goes on ad nauseum.

Its a perfect economic model. Greed from consumers leak dozens of stolen software products into work, lobbing from the companies introduces disruptive crackdown laws, and lawyers to fan the flames of the battle.

Piracy may be a thing of the past soon. Free software has the whole piracy battle fascinating to watch. Its not like writing complex software is difficult anymore: especially now that have GHz processors, massive storage space, and unheard of bandwidth that allows gentoo and BSD installations coexist with the source code.

This encourages rapidly insane development times and bug fixes. Even non-programmers like me can fix a bug: anyone can browse through the code and follow the flow to the trouble and submit a patch. Its easier than ever before and kids are picking up on this too. People want control of their computers. It helps them create a virtual playground of intriguing possiblities.

Soon there may no longer be "piracy" as the masses learn to develop for themselves and the community around them. Such efforts seem to create superior technologies that are developed behind closed doors. Bye, bye Photoshop!

Right price point, wrong users (5, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561778)

Flash, Photoshop, and even MS Office are all products not designed for ordinary consumers. They're just not. They're packed with features and tools for professionals, and those professionals are trying to make money with this software. The least they can do is ante up a few hours worth of their own fees to pay for the tools they use.

If you're a consumer, and you want a cheap product, the vendors are there for you. MS Office cost too much for your school papers? Get a copy of Works. Photoshop expensive for making web graphics and removing red-eye? Get Photoshop Elements for a fraction of the price.

Meanwhile, Macromedia Flash is the perfect example of a tool not targetted at consumers, period. The tutorial takes a couple of hours to get through, minimum, when you're starting from scratch, and ActionScript is hardly a walk in the park.

You say you'd buy Flash MX for $50. Well, what are you going to do with it? Goof around and build crappy animated interfaces for your web site? Or learn to use it properly and sell yourself as a Flash professional? If it's the latter, then take a class or pay for the full product, and justify the $50/hour your peers are charging. If it's the former, just learn JavaScript. It's still free.

Re:Right price point, wrong users (1)

Black_Logic (79637) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562292)

Flash is not difficult to learn. Got a job in the .com industry for a while with a game company (they're dead now :) (gamebrain.com)

I for one hate flash's proverbial guts.. (now anyways) but I do think they're should be an easy/cheap way to get ahold of software to learn. (most productive learning i've done is by myself) There's a lot of software people could do well in an industry. ie.(3d studio max, maya, flash)

Kind of a moot point anyways, There IS a cheap (read free) way to get ahold of the software :)
Anyways I got a good (50,000 a year) job at the age of 19 because a pirated the flash5 author tool and made a decent game.

Intent is all fine and good... (5, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561783)

But these companies do have a right to set the price they want to do a transaction at;

If that means $584 for Photoshop, then that's what you need to fork over. If you don't like it... doesn't mean you have the right or privilege to download or use it.

Then there's the $89 version of Photoshop Elements.

Or you can get an older, cheaper version of Photoshop. Photoshop 5.5, 5.0, 4.0. 3.0, all worked, and continue to work today.

Or you can use gimp.

If you can't afford to use the program, you can't afford to use the program, and that's how simple it is.

If you *need* the program, then you can afford it. If a $584 copy of Photoshop allows you to earn $30,000 a year in consultation fees, you can afford Photoshop.

If you just want to put pictures on the web... use the $89 of Photoshop.

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

Joseph Vigneau (514) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561795)

People pirate software because it is so expensive. "Back in the day" just about every program was 50$. Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need costs $584 at www.buy.com. That's well over what most people can afford. It's half the price of an extremely decent computer!

"Back in the day", you didn't have Photoshop. As it's been said in the countless piracy threads on /., if you can't afford the software, don't use it; Adobe loses a sale (unless you pirate, of course). Software is like any other business: it's all about supply and demand. Photoshop is priced at $584 because people are willing to pay for it! If people didn't need all the whizbang functionality and support (including books) for Photoshop, they could use something like The GIMP [gimp.org] legally, for free. If people didn't think Photoshop was worth $584, they would not buy it, and Adobe would be forced to lower the price (which may also mean fewer features in the next release: commerce software by its nature is not cheap to produce).

Re:Piracy Spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561980)

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, because I'm new to this "logic" thing. Aren't people pirating Photoshop exactly because they are NOT willing to pay for it? And isn't that the reason why the price goes up?

Re:Piracy Spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561815)

but there are a lot of people like me, college students, who can't afford a 500$ program that they need for a class.

Most colleges have deals with software companies that allow students taking classes that need those programs to get them either free or extremely cheap. I got Visual Studio professional free for when i took a VB class.

Also, the dollar sign comes before the amount.

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

datastew (529152) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561846)

Software should be open. Stallman was right. No, really. . . bear with me on this.

Piracy will end when programming is seen as a service in itself. Programmers provide a service and move on to the next job, like a lawyer, doctor, or engineer. Each of these professions, along with countless other service providers, use an established set of industry-standard guidelines, principles and tools to provide the service the customer requires.

We need to get away from the idea that we will write the perfect program, and sell a million copies and get rich. What is needed is a way to give the customer what they want using a complete, interoperable set of tools.

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

amosb (580810) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561921)

Programs like WS_FTP have the right idea. If you are a business user or a company looking to use the software you have to pay up. But if you are a home user who isn't profiting off of the use of the software, then its absolutely free.

This is precisely what the large software companies have achieved through their astronomical pricing schemes, and you can be assured that it is intentional. They don't expect you to pay $300 for Office, they expect you to get it for free on a new computer or bum it off a friend. Large companies with thousands of users and software audits have to pay for their licenses, and thus, subsidize the pirates. This is not to say piracy is OK, but it is expected and accounted for. The folks who lose are the righteously honest who actually need Office, and thus dish out the large pile of cash. You'll notice that today, the vast number of "reasonably priced" products (games, pims, etc.) are those that don't have a place in the office environment, and thus must make their money off the small fry.

Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need costs $584 at www.buy.com. That's well over what most people can afford. It's half the price of an extremely decent computer!

I take issue with your choice of Photoshop as an example. Perhaps it is just my personal love of the application, but I have no problems with their pricing. They sells to a much smaller market than the office-centric products, yet the development effort required is just as large. Additionally, for the vast majority of Photoshop users, Photoshop is their most valuable piece of property (equal to that of their computer, since their computer would be pointless without Photoshop). For most of these folks, Photoshop pays itself off immediately, which is why you rarely hear them complain about its cost. For the folks who pirate Photoshop citing its pricetag, my guess is that you don't remotely need Photoshop, and there are plenty of free/cheap image editors that would more than serve your actual needs. In fact, by pirating Photoshop you're doing much less to harm Adobe than you are the small developer groups that produce the app you actually need and could really use your $30 shareware fee. I'm fairly certain that you'd get a similar argument from a true Flash developer, although not being in that area I cannot guarantee it.

Re:Piracy Spiral (2)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562067)

Large companies with thousands of users and software audits have to pay for their licenses, and thus, subsidize the pirates. This is not to say piracy is OK, but it is expected and accounted for.

That statement contains such a logical flaw that I can't let it pass unnoticed.

College student Bob, who can only afford to eat macaroni and cheese for dinner, cannot afford to pay $300 for MS Office. He is not a potential customer. No matter what choice he makes, he has cost Microsoft nothing. So, suppose he pirates MS Office. He has not cost Microsoft a sale or otherwise deprived them of revenue they would have had. If Bob pirates MS Office, Microsoft has no fewer copies than they did prior to Bob pirating a copy.

You can argue the ethics, legality, and morality of Bob's actions until you are blue in the face, but claiming that someone has to "subsidize" his piracy of Microsoft Office is based on fallacious reasoning.

Re:Piracy Spiral (2)

Tazzy531 (456079) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562314)

Your argument is quite flawed itself:
He has not cost Microsoft a sale or otherwise deprived them of revenue they would have had. If Bob pirates MS Office, Microsoft has no fewer copies than they did prior to Bob pirating a copy.
Let's say that I'm an author. I decide to copy Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" and put my name on it and sell it. Hemingway isn't losing any money neither.

The issue is what gives you the right to use someone else's work. Money is not the issue here and should not be made the issue. The issue is always, someone invested a lot of time/money into it and they should be compensated for the work. If you want to use it, you have to pay. If you can't pay, you shouldn't use it. There are plenty of alternatives to these pricy software.

Re:Piracy Spiral (2)

Tazzy531 (456079) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561965)

Ah..I wish I could use this argument for my college tuition.

Yes, I feel that the 34,000 a year is too expensive for my college education. Since I don't want to pay that much, the college should lower the tuition. Since they don't, and I don't want to go to community college, I should get it for free.

Oh please, can you talk to my financial aid committee for me.. :-)

But on a serious note, why do we assume that since we can't afford it, we should get it for free. I mean, if I were getting my drivers license, and I don't have a car. And cars are too expensive, should I be allowed to "borrow" one from the dealer because I'm using it for learning purposes?

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

TooTallFourThinking (206334) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562386)

Now you have struck a chord between the difference between a car and software, at least in the mind of a pirate. Copying software is cheap. To copy software all you need is a 50 cent CD-R and a CD burner. It's quick, easy and inexpensive to do.

Copying a car is more difficult. You need the material, machines and tools to build a car. The amount of work to copy a car is considerable as compared to software. So you won't hear people trying to get a car dealer to give them a car. (Unless you are Bob and David.)

With something so cheap, inexpensive and easy to copy like software, it becomes easier for people to rationalize. I have heard, "if I ever make money from it, I'll buy it. Until then I'll just play around with it." Because it is so easy to do, it becomes harder to perceive they are doing something wrong. Or their actions are hurtful to the company.

Although, I could be off my mark here. Any thoughts on this?

Re:Piracy Spiral (2)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562103)

"Back in the day" just about every program was 50$
Uh, just what "day" was that back in? Programs in the same class as Photoshop (i.e. apps geared towards professionals) have always been expensive. "Back in the day" dbase was expensive, word perfect was expensive, harvard graphics was expensive, 123 was expensive. That was why a little company called Borland was able to carve out a niche for itself by selling inexpensive software.

As a matter of fact, if you look at it from the standpoint of price over time, the price of "pro" software has remained stagnant, it's usually around $300-$600, been that way for a good many years now.

And why shouldn't programs like PS be half the price of the pc, if you _need_ photoshop, then what's more important to you, a chunck of hardware that you can buy from about a million sources, or that piece of software that is going to pay the mortgage and car payment?

Re:Piracy Spiral (2)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562144)

Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need

That is not true. Photoshop is designed for graphics professionals, not the average user. That's why Adobe has Photoshop Elements [adobe.com], which is bundled with many scanners and can be purchased for $84 [buy.com].

The truth is, almost all sofware is not priced too expensively for the markets they target. The problem is that users are greedy. They want to have lots of programs, more than they would normally use, and they also want to have programs that are high-end just to have them. No, the real reason why people pirate software is because they can.

Students also get significant discounts on software. I don't know of any major piece of software that costs $500 for a student. For instance, the academic price for Photoshop 7 (full) is $300, which is less than half of the MSRP.

Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

DerekTheRed (579180) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562193)

It's fine if software prices increase because of theft. That will never affect me, because I will never pay for software at any cost. I have not paid for software in 5 years, and music in 2 years. Call me a jerk, call me a bad guy, but calling me names does not make me more inclined to pay the Stupid People Tax. Your outrage does not make me more accountable, so fling your monkey bone to the sky but don't beat me with it -- I ain't paying.

Re:Piracy Spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3562240)

Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need costs $584 at www.buy.com. That's well over what most people can afford. It's half the price of an extremely decent computer! Flash MX is $198. If these programs were say 50$, I would buy them. But since I am not a pirate, I have to suffer and not have them on my pc. I am lucky that at college I can go to certain labs and use my school's license, but most people can not.

You're in college? Why not take advantage of academic-licensed software? It's not "$50", but close enough (i'm a college student, it's how I purchase my SW)

A quick peek at micromaster.com reveals:

Photoshop 7 - $280

Flash MX - $99

Fireworks MX - $99

Freehand 10 - $99


Re:Piracy Spiral (1)

Whizziwig (23055) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562241)

You want to play music, as an amateur, hobby thing, but maybe you're thinking about doing a few gigs.

Buy an electric guitar. You computer. You can now theoretically make music.

Next you want an amp, this could be more than your guitar. Add petals. Add replacement stirngs.

You've spent a lot more than your initial investment.The computer is a platform from which to run tools.

Make up your mind about Microsoft (2)

joneshenry (9497) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562255)

A poster in a previous story mentioned that at Purdue the cost to students of any Microsoft product was only $5 USD. At many colleges students are able to get say MS Office XP at a cost far cheaper than Sun's StarOffice 6.0.

But I find it ironic that the same people who claim that Microsoft is deliberately encouraging illegal copying are the ones decrying when Microsoft makes any effort to enforce their copyright. These people think nothing of constantly arguing that Microsoft's product activation for consumer products is the tool of the devil, and these were the same people who argued that Intel should not automatically enable a processor identification number.

The proper cost of software is not the cost to replicate the product once made, for that completely discounts any research and development used to create and maintain the product. The true cost is some fraction of the utility the software will provide to the customer. $600 USD is about the point at which software's utility makes it a reasonable value for a business to purchase for an employee. If anything perhaps Adobe is underpricing Photoshop.

To tie this to a previous story today, a commercial user would certainly not be able to purchase a single license for Mathematica for $100. The proper price because of the utility to the customer is more than 10 times that. On the other hand Wolfram Research provides a sharp discount for a student version of Mathematica. Idiots who claim that software should be priced at the marginal cost of making one more CD need to explain how one is supposed to support a company that can create a product such as Mathematica that is 1000 times superior to anything that free software offers.

Similar conditions apply to software that services niches such as providing accessibility for the disabled. Such software easily runs $600 and over, because that's the value to the customer. Even if there were a software patent-free world I see little chance that free software could ever come up with an equivalent to Dragon Naturally Speaking Professional or Mathematica. The reason is that an army of coders, no matter how many, can never match the expertise of top professionals such as Drs. James and Janet Baker who routinely defeated the competition at DARPA contests of voice recognition software or of Dr. Stephen Wolfram.

$600 USD priced software is hardly the bane of the industry. A product that truly meets a desperate need in an innovative way has to be priced at least that in order to develop and continuously refine the technology. Countries whose attention to software theft is lax are not where these breakthrough technologies are being developed, and software developers from those countries cannot flee to the US fast enough.

Check your logs... (3, Funny)

arson1 (527855) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561687)

This guy did, and there's some amusing results....

http://www.chiprowe.com/articles/searchterms.html [chiprowe.com]

+anal +sandwich!?!?!?
I can't even imagine what that is.

My logs reveal this as well. (1)

mahlen (6997) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561918)

Most people who land on my site are looking for something free that other people don't want them to have (frequently, I suspect, a book report). And since I never have it either, people must be disappointed.

look at my logs [mahlen.org]


On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli

Re:Check your logs... (-1)

ElCagado (575762) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561929)

I checked my logs as per your recommendation and all I found was that they were:

a. brown
b. stinky

What am I looking for exactly?

Re:Check your logs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3562198)

anal sandwich. one person having sex with a partner underneath, and being analy penetrated by partner from above

usually associated with bisexual sort of things

carry on.

Overture Teams Showcase Page Widening (-1, Redundant)

No Anorexic Pages (580792) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561707)

A New Kind of Science Posted by timothy on Tuesday May 21 09 45AM cybrpnk2 writes The story is one of epic proportions Boy genius gets PhD from Cal Tech at age 20 is the youngest recipient ever of the MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant writes the Mathematica simulation software used by millions of people makes millions of dollars in the process becomes enticed by the seductive lure of the Game of Life and goes into a decade of seclusion to discover the secrets of the universe You can catch up on the resulting speculation and hype here The years of anticipation and publication delays came to an end Tuesday May 14 2002 with Stephan Wolfram s release of his opus A New Kind of Science Read on for cybrpnk2 s review of Wolfram s much heralded work A New Kind Of Science author Stephen Wolfram pages 1197 plus 62 page index publisher Wolfram Media Inc rating 10 reviewer cybrpnk2 ISBN 1 57955 008 8 summary A long awaited treatise that cellular automations not mathematics holds the key to understanding reality First things first have I read this book Hell no and if anybody else says THEY have in the next year they re lying thru their teeth This book is so dense that if Wolfram had added a single additional page the whole thing would have imploded into a black hole That s got to be the only reason he quit writing and finally went to press I ve been waiting for years for ANKOS to come out I ordered my copy Tuesday when it was released got it on Thursday and I ve been skimming it like mad since To give you some idea of how engrossing this book is I was reading it Friday morning at 4 AM in the bathroom of a Motel 6 curled up in a bedspread on the tile floor to keep from disturbing my wife and stepdaughter during a trip to my stepson s graduation I ve got four college degrees one in math and two from MIT and bottom line this sucker s gonna take a while to digest However it s theoretically straightforward enough that anybody with a high enough level of obsession and a few years to stay glued to it can follow it in its entirety In ANKOS Wolfram certainly comes across as arrogantly cocky but in the final analysis is he a crank or a revolutionary genius Who knows but it s going to be a new nerd pastime for the next decade to argue that point ANKOS is 1250 pages divided into 850 pages of breezy exposition followed by 350 pages of fine print notes The exposition is composed of 12 chapters and the notes have about a paragraph per page of topic and name dropping technobabble to let you know where to go next for more details on whichever of Wolfram s tangents strike your fancy Topping the whole thing off is a 60 page index with thousands of entries in even smaller typeface than the notes Despite its length ANKOS is not a rigorous mathematical proof of anything as much as it is a superficial survey of a vast new intellectual landscape And what a landscape Wolfram has laid before us It s all about cellular automations which have traditionally been relegated to the realm of mathematical recreations Start with a black square in the center grid square cell on the top line of a sheet of graph paper Think up a few rules about whether a square gets colored black or white on the next line down depending on the colors of its neighbors Apply these rules to the squares on the next line of the sheet of graph paper Repeat Watch what happens Sounds simple It isn t The first short chapter outlines Wolfram s central thesis That three hundred years of mathematics based on the equals sign have failed to provide true insight into various complex systems in nature and that algorithms based on the DO loop can succeed in this endeavor where mathematics has failed The reason claims Wolfram is that deceptively simple algorithms can produce heretofore undreamed of levels of complexity He claims that while frontier intellectual efforts such as chaos theory fractals AI cybernetics and so forth have hinted at this concept for years his decade of isolation studying cellular automata has taken the idea of simple algorithms or rules embodying universal complexity to the level of a new paradigm The second chapter outlines what Wolfram calls his crucial experiment the systematic analysis of the 256 simplest rule sets for the most basic cellular automatons He discovers this universe of rules is sufficient to produce his four so called classes of complex systems order self similar nested patterns structures and most importantly true randomness The first two lead to somewhat familiar checkerboard type patterns and leaf type fractals the last two unforeseen unique shapes and unpredictable sequences Wolfram stresses that the ability of simple iterative algorithms to produce complex and unique non fractal shapes as well as truly random sequences of output is in fact a revolutionary new discovery with subtle and profound implications The third chapter expands his initial 256 rule set universe of simple algorithms with many others Wolfram has researched for years in the dead of night while others slept Rule sets involving multiple colors beyond black and white rule sets that update only one grid square instead of a whole row rule sets that embody full blown Turing machines rule sets that substitute entire sets of patterned blocks into single grid cells that tag end point grid squares with new patterns that implement registers and symbols Wolfram has examined them all in excruciating detail And no matter how complex the rule set is he explores it ends up generating still more and more unexpected complex behavior with many notable features as the rule sets are implemented This ever escalating spiral of complexity leads Wolfram to believe that cellular automatons are a viable alternative to mathematics in modeling in fact embodying the inherent complexity of the natural world In chapter four he begins this process by linking cellular automatons to the natural world concept of numbers Automatons that multiply and divide that calculate prime numbers and generate universal constants like pi that calculate square roots and even more complex numerical functions like partial differential equations Wolfram details them all Who needs conscious human minds like those of Pythagoras or Newton to laboriously work out over thousands of years the details of things like trigonometry or calculus Set up dominos in just the right way flip the first one and stand back nature can do such calculations automatically efficiently and mindlessly Chapter five broadens the natural scope of cellular automations from one dimensional numbers to multi dimensional entities Simple X Y Cartesian coordinates are left behind as Wolfram defines networks and constraints as the canvas on which updated cellular automatons flourish always generating the ever higher levels of complexity More Turing machines and fractals such as snowflakes and biological cells forming organs spontaneously spring forth So far we ve seen some really neat sleight of hand that Martin Gardner or Michael Barnsley might have written But we re only on page 200 of 850 with seven chapters to go and Wolfram is just now getting warmed up Chapter six is where Wolfram begins to lay the foundation for what he believes is so special about his insights and discoveries Instead of using rigid and fixed initial conditions as the starting points for the cellular automations he has described he now explores what happens using random and unknown initial conditions in each of his previously defined four classes of systems He finds that while previously explored checkerboard Class 1 and fractal Class 2 systems yield few surprises his newly discovered unique Class 3 and random Class 4 cellular automaton systems generate still higher levels of complexity and begin to exhibit behavior that can simulate any of the four classes a telltale hint of universality Furthermore their behavior starts to be influenced by attractors that guide them to structure and self organization With the scent of universality and self organization in the air Wolfram begins in chapter seven to compare and contrast his cellular automations to various real world topics of interest Billiards taffy making Brownian motion casino games the three body problem pachinko machines randomness is obviously a factor in all of these Yet Wolfram notes while randomness is embedded in the initiation and influences the outcomes of each of these processes none of them actually generate true randomness in the course of running the process itself The cellular automations he has catalogued particularly his beloved Rule 30 do The realization that cellular automations can uniquely serve as an initiator or generator of true randomness is a crucial insight leading to the difference between continuity and discreteness and ultimately to the origins of simple behaviors How you ask Hey Wolfram takes most of the chapter to lay it out in a manner that I m still trying to follow no way can I summarize it in a sentence or two By chapter eight Wolfram believes he has laid out sufficient rationale for why you me and everybody else should think cellular automations are indeed the mirror we should be looking in to find true reflections of the world around us Forget the Navier Stokes equations if you want to understand fluid flow you have to think of it as a cellular automation process Ditto for crystal growth Ditto for fracture mechanics Ditto for Wall Street Most definitely ditto for biological systems like leaf growth seashell growth and pigmentation patterns This is very convincing stuff tables of Mathematica generated cellular automation shapes side by side with the photos of corresponding leaves or seashells or pigment patterns found in nature Yes you ve seen this before in all of the fractals textbooks The difference between fractals and cellular automations fractals are a way to mathematically catalog the points that make up the object while cellular automations are a way to actually physically create the object via a growth process It s a somewhat subtle difference and a key Wolfram point Having established some credibility for his ideas Wolfram stretches that credibility to the limit in chapter nine where he applies his cellular automation ideas to fundamental physics It was practically inevitable he would do this his first published paper as a teenager was on particle physics and that s the field he got his PhD in from Cal Tech at age 20 before going on to write the Mathematica software program and make his millions as a young businessman Despite his solid background in physics this seems at first blush to be pretty speculative stuff He shifts his focus on the cellular automations from randomness to reversibility and describes several rule sets that both lead to complexity and are reversible This behavior is an apparent violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics From Wolfram s way of thinking if the universe is indeed some kind of ongoing cellular automation then it may well be reversible and the Second Law must not be the whole story so there must be something more we have yet to learn about the nature of the universe itself He continues extensive speculations on what this may be and how space time gravity relativity and quantum mechanics must all be manifestations of this underlying Universal Cellular Automation The rule set for this ultimate automation which Wolfram believes might ultimately be expressed as only a few lines of code in Mathematica takes the place of a mathematically defined unified field theory in Wolfram s world This is mind blowing stuff but ultimately boils down to Wolfram s opinion I have great difficulty in comprehending space and time and matter and energy as mere manifestations of some cellular automation if so what is left to be the system on which the automation itself is running I m reduced to one of Clarke s Laws The universe is not only stranger than we imagine it is stranger than we CAN imagine Wolfram shifts from Kubrick style religion back to mere philosophy in chapter ten where he explores how cellular automations are perceived by the human mind Visual image perception the human perception of complexity and randomness cryptography data compression statistical analysis and the nature of mathematics as a mental artifact are all explored The chapter ends on a discussion of language and the mechanics of thinking itself Wolfram reaches no real concrete conclusions on any of these except that once again cellular automation is a revolutionary new tool to use in achieving new insights on all of these topics Chapter eleven jumps from the human mind to the machine mind by exploring not the nature of consciousness but the nature of computation instead He goes here into somewhat deeper detail on ideas he has introduced earlier about how cellular automations can perform mathematical calculations emulate other computational systems and act as universal Turing machines He focuses on the implications of randomness in Class 4 systems and the universality embodied in systems like that of his Rule 110 His arguments lead up to a closing realization what he does not call but may one day be named Wolfram s Law The final chapter chapter twelve discusses what all of Wolfram s years of isolation and work have led him to conclude He calls it the Principle of Computational Equivalence What follows is an unavoidably oversimplified distillation of Wolfram s thoughts on the PCE If indeed cellular automations are somehow at the heart of the universe around us then the human effort to reduce the universe to understandable models and formulas and simulations is ultimately doomed to failure Because of the nature of cellular automation computation there is no way to come up with a shortcut method that will deduce the final outcome of a system in advance of it actually running to completion We can currently compute a rocket trajectory or a lens shape or a skyscraper framework in advance using mathematics merely because these are ridiculously simple human efforts New technologies based not on mathematics but instead on cellular automations like wind tunnel simulators and nanobot devices will be exciting technological advances but will not lead to a fundamentally new understanding of nature Issues that humans define as undecidability and intractability will always limit the level of understanding we will ultimately achieve and will always have impacts on philosophical questions such as predestination and free will To conclude with Wolfram s own final paragraph in the book And indeed in the end the PCE encapsulates both the ultimate power and the ultimate weakness of science For it implies that all the wonders of the universe can in effect be captured by simple rules yet it shows that there can be no way to know all the consequences of these rules except in effect just to watch and see how they unfold As noted above 350 pages of notes follow this exposition and trust me there s no way they can be summarized To mention one nugget I found amusing as I envisioned Wolfram working towards endless dawns on ANKOS he thinks sleep has no purpose except to allow removal of built up brain wastes that cannot be removed while conscious So much for dreaming So what is the bottom line on ANKOS It is a towering piece of work and an enduring monument to what a focused and disciplined intellect can achieve It is very thought provoking It will definitely lead to new work and progress on cellular automation theory and some interesting technological applications we should all look forward to with anticipation But is it the next Principia the herald of a new scientific revolution Read and decide for yourself Only time and a lot of it will tell Book Reviews Slashdot s book review section is brimming with reader submitted commentary on interesting books Here s a sampling of recent reviews read below for how you can add yours to the list For programmers check out reviews of the Zope Bible Programming Jabber and other specialized books If you re just trying to manage programmers grumpy s review of Managing Einsteins might be just what you re looking for Meanwhile keep the company afloat with lessons learned from The MouseDriver Chronicles and The Bombast Transcripts Science buff Read Tal Cohen s reaction to Rare Earth and Peter Wayner on Digital Biology Don t forget the grain of salt in Voodoo Science either His Dark Materials is one of the many Science Fiction titles that Slashdot readers have praised or panned for your pleasure And somewhere between Sci Fi and reality are books like Flesh and Machines reporting from the intersection of yesterday s fiction and current technology It s easy to submit your own reviews for consideration too Just read the Slashdot book review guidelines and then use the web submission form Update 20020427 12 50 by timothy

Free Flash Alternatives (1, Informative)

hbmartin (579860) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561710)

If Macromedia doesn't want to make flash free(as in price), I respect their righ to do so. But it's cool to see free(code and price) alternatives becoming usable. My favorite is the PHP-based FreeMovie [sourceforge.net].

software piracy (1, Flamebait)

56ker (566853) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561715)

shh! Don't tell everyone they can search for warez and cracks using the search engines - or they'll all be at it!

Re:software piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3562387)

Well frankly I'm shocked - shocked I tell you, to hear that the internet is being used this way. I'm surprised it wasn't the headline on CNN.

I'm not concered (3, Insightful)

ShawnDoc (572959) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561717)

Let's be honest. Most of the people looking for the "crack" are most likely teens and preteens w/out a job who are looking to do a bit of flash work for a friends web site or something similar. I don't believe the majority of the people looking for the crack would have bought the software had they not been able to crack the software (And if they are using Overture to search for cracks, they're not going to find them anyway). So the total number of sales lost due to piracy like this are minimal.

In fact, I've got a hunch that a lot of these guys will turn out to be great Macromedia customers in a few years once they've honed their skills on the cracked version, and enter the real world of web page design where they can A) Afford the software and B) Write it off as a tax deduction.

Now, I'm not justifying the piracy, and it doesn't make it any less illegal. I just don't think its a big deal when you look at the total picture.

Re:I'm not concered (1)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561901)

I don't believe the majority of the people looking for the crack would have bought the software had they not been able to crack the software
You are probably right when it comes to a product like Flash. The "fun" quotient of software coupled with its uniqueness is directly related to the desire to pirate it. It speaks to the inner (and outer) child which is, well, childish.

Re:I'm not concered (1)

JordoCrouse (178999) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561940)

The "fun" quotient of software coupled with its uniqueness is directly related to the desire to pirate it.

I thought so too, then I found 14,000 pages on Google with the words [google.com]
"Quickbooks crack"

So maybe the fun quotient isn't as important as the usefulness quotient?

Wanted: (2, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561719)

swfnews.com seeks swmnews.com for long term relationship. Must like long walks on the beach, holding hands, and kittens. No headgames or posers.

Will Adobe use this? (1)

traskjd (580657) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561721)

I wonder if Adobe could use the number of cracks downloaded for Flash MX to boost the amount they are suing Macromedia for? I don't know however, not being a law student if people who pirate your software count as your uses :-)

same with macromedia blogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561726)

check out the refer urls for the Macromedia weblogs:

Macromedia Dreamweaver community manager
http://subhonker6.userland.com/rcsPublic/ referers? site=0106884&group=radio1

it is all for searches for dreamweaver cracks.

although the flash community managers site:

doesn't have many hits on flash cracks (although it did last week).

Re:same with macromedia blogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561749)

oops that second link should be:

http://subhonker6.userland.com/rcsPublic/referer s? site=0106797&group=radio1

Nothing new... (5, Interesting)

Tazzy531 (456079) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561727)

There's nothing new about this "news" article. We all know piracy runs pretty rampant on the net. We all know that many (including us), justify it by saying that
  • It's too expensive
  • I'm just using it for educational purposes
  • I wouldn't have bought it anyways

People have been saying this since the mid-90s where we were downloading "warez" from BBS's.

Re:Nothing new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561762)

People have been saying this since the mid-90s where we were downloading "warez" from BBS's.

since the mid 90s? Try the early 80s. Pirate groups like FiRM began cracking CGA based games for the PC around '84/'85, and Commodore pirates go back earlier. Piracy has and always will be a problem.

Re:Nothing new... (1)

Torgo's Pizza (547926) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561809)

Mid-90's?!? Piracy has been going on since the 70's my friend.

Re:Nothing new... (2)

Tazzy531 (456079) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561886)

Probably even before that. What I meant was that it didn't hit the mainstream / mainstream media until the late 80s and early 90s. In addition, the impact during that point (the 70s) wasn't as great as later on. With the BBS, internet, CD burners, etc piracy makes it extremely easier than back in the 70s.

I remember "copying" dos 5.0 from my friend using 5.25" floppies. I had to run 10 blocks to his house with a box of disks than bring it back to install it. This physical distance between people limit their ability to pirate on a wide scale. With bbs's/internet, the "friction" is dramatically reduced. The impact of piracy hits harder. Software/media/music can be spread to millions of people before it even hits the store shelves.

Piracy could be mostly stopped (4, Interesting)

br0ken by design (576303) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561737)

By the companies doing one thing:
Offering noncommercial use licenses on full software products, at a NOMINAL[1] cost,
while aggressively pursuing companies that violate the noncommerical licenses.
This would allow the kids who want to play with ($software), make wacky animations, programs and such to do so without breaking the law, while charging the people that make money off of flash the full license fee.
There's even an added benefit - a lot more people will learn ($software), and will potentially become paying customers in the future (this especially applies to younger people).
Educational software is not the answer, as it's only open to students, and often times is *still* too highly priced for many people that just want to fool around.

I think piracy would be greatly reduced if the software companies would recognize that a lot of the warezing is being done because the price is too high for people that just want to 'play' and not actually do any for-profit work.

[1] under $100. Just media with PDF'd docs.

Re:Piracy could be mostly stopped (3, Insightful)

Tazzy531 (456079) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561847)

The problem with that is this. At one point or another this "kid" that is learning is going to find out that he can make money doing some flash work or photoshop work. Is he going to say that, Oh, I have the "kids" version, I can't do that, I need to buy the full version? Or is he just going to go ahead an use it.

Secondly, you mention nominal cost (under 100). Do you think people that pirate the software will even pay that much? $100 is still a lot of money for a person that is used to receiving it for free.

I don't feel that price is the main issue/reason that piracy is so rampant. Whether a program is 500 or 50, people will still pirate it. The main issue here is that people that have been growing up with computers in recent years and in the past 20 years or so have become so accustomed to getting things for free or cheap. Most of the necessary apps come pre-installed on computers. Many of us download music (mp3s) for free. On the internet, most of the sites are free. If we are into open-source, the os, apps, and stuff are all free. How do you get it into someones head that they need to buy something if they or their friends can get it for free.

Sorry. No benefit from younger people. (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561856)

[quote] There's even an added benefit - a lot more people will learn ($software), and will potentially become paying customers in the future (this especially applies to younger people). [/quote]

Grandpa talks: When I was young, we learned word processing with a really sophisticated piece of software called.... "Word Perfect 5.1"

I'm sorry. No paying Flash users in the future. Maybe a company like Coca Cola can invest in the future. M-Soft... Hmmm. Possible, but a company like MacroMedia?

Flash MX (2, Insightful)

Mathonwy (160184) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561750)

I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it.

Maybe there are less people who don't know how to use flash and want to than there are who already know how, but don't have $500 to fork over for the full version. (I know I certainly fall into the second catagory...)

(and to be fair, flash has one of the better built-in tutorials for learning how to use it.)

People need a crack, not a tutorial. (-1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561757)

I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it

Why is that disturbing? Consider the following:

1) Lots of people already know how to use it.


Cracks (0, Funny)

Chinese Karma Whore (560174) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561774)

I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it

Cracks are pretty easy to use, so I doubt that many people would be downloading the tutorial for it.

Frickin' editors... (1)

abh (22332) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561782)

Would it be too much to ask for the /. editors to read the items submitted and to verify that the links work? Of all things, the slashcode link was broken due to a dumb HTML error.

well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561794)

let's face it....sometimes you have to search fairly hard to find that crack, so you're plugging in a bunch of search terms.....crack, serial, warez, etc. So it's going to be more disproportionally represented thatn say tutorial, since pretty much everyone calls a tutorial a tutorial, and because they're easier to find. It'd be more interesting if they could some how filter out redundant search terms coming from the same address (aka this guy sent 12 searches for a crack to flash mx, but all worded differently).

Overture tool (2, Informative)

Target Drone (546651) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561798)

You can play with the search tool mentioned in the article by going here [overture.com].

Its kind of fun to see what people search for. I tried typing in "XXX". The top 4 searches were:

  • free xxx
  • xxx password
  • free xxx picture
  • free xxx movie
Seems like it's not just Flash Mx that people want for free.

Re:Overture tool (2)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561820)

It's not so much that everyone wants 'XXX' content for free, it's just that who the hell has to SEARCH for porn on the internet?

If you need a search engine to find porn online, you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer.

Re:Overture tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3561874)

good [al4a.com] updated daily. always helps in a pinch ;-)

Curious (2)

bravehamster (44836) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561816)

I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it."

I find this more curious than disturbing. I guess the people who crack FlashMX already know how to use it? Or maybe it's just that people who are capable of cracking software consider themselves to be computer savvy and would rather learn it on their own than try to find tutorials. Hmm...or maybe it's a new form of advertising from Macromedia: Buy FlashMX! Easier to learn than it is to crack!

Re:Curious (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561954)

No, the reason is that most people who use Flash, are, well.. um lets just say, they went to *art school* if you know what i mean. They think they can use software without Reading-TFM, then they come up with bad designs. They can't afford to pay for Flash so they crack it, i cracked Flash once - but you know what, i did allot of crazy things back in collage that i regret, some involving live animals, others involving wood glue and skirts. I don't use flash, or though i sometimes use 3D-Max (yes i did read the manual), i'm trying to move to free software but its hard (ie the blender incident). I'm not saying that all art students are dumb - i did a-level art, but i've learn't my lesson and gone a more technical path. As everything is dumbed down, its very easy to get stupid (you can see how its affected my spelling) sometimes art students are dumb... god, that sounded dumb

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3562030)

Maybe the people you crack the program never use it once it is installed... I know that I haven't used Flash 4, but I still may download this current version. It is just a game to see who can get the biggest library of software.

Billions and billions lost! Really? (1)

TheOldFart (578597) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561826)

The question to be asked is how many of these pirated downloads are actual lost sales. This is a study to be made. I would guess only a very small fraction. When the industry cries out for "billions" of dollars in lost sales, one can only laugh. Not only they are using full retail price (which no one has to pay), they also count every copy stolen by 13 year-olds in China. Filter out those who would never buy it any way and you may as well end up with "thousands" of dollars instead...

Of course (2)

infiniti99 (219973) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561881)

Everyone knows that lots of people who pirate software don't even use said software. I've seen people who carry around big binders of CDRs, full of anything you could ever want (even pointless stuff like old versions of Photoshop). These people collect for the sake of collecting. Sure, maybe they toyed around with 3DSMax for a half hour to make a rotating teapot, but that's about it.

Maybe it's an "elite" or "cool" factor that leads these people to collect?

Re:Of course (2)

Tazzy531 (456079) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561898)

Back in my .. "younger" days, I was one of those people. I'd burn cdrs just for the sake of having it. I mean, you're right, it's part of the "elite" (not l33t, [stupid kids these days!]) factor. It's also as a way to demonstrate that 1) the system doesn't work 2) you can get around the system...etc...

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3562063)

Kinda like the idiots that collect beanie baby's, mcDonalds toys, etc. They seem to be under the impression that being a packrat is cool.

Joel On Piracy (1)

eddeye (85134) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561953)

Funny, I _just_ finished reading a large discussion of software licensing and anti-piracy measures over on Joel On Software:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/defau lt . sp?cmd=show&ixPost=8271

The comments run the gamut from shrewd to moronic to insane to genius. You have to go about a third of the way down to reach the posts on piracy generalities rather than specific measures.

The most interesting post is from Andrew Cross (3/5 down, no anchors to link to). In part, he says:

"we certainly don't think that listening to the radio is piracy, for thet matter recording music off the radio is not considered picracy and neither is video-taping MTV ... Clearly music companies see these forms of music distribution as marketting as opposed to piracy, and in some ways I think that the copy protection issue with software is similar."

Re:Joel On Piracy (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562288)

The music and television industries DO see these activities as piracy. Broadcasters have tried on several occasions to get VCRs and cassette tapes banned outright. The US Governemnt declared that taping broadcasts for personal use is covered under the Fair Use doctrine and that the broadcasters needed to STFU. You can bet your testicles that if the Government had not sided with Joe Consumer on this issue that home-taping would be a criminal offense.

Big deal (3, Interesting)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#3561985)

Lets stop all the whoopla about Warez. Be realistic -- it doesn't cost businesses a thing. Most people who d/l Warez wouldn't have paid the steep price for the program anyways, so companies lose no money. They're just using it as an excuse to keep prices arbitrarily high. The average person who d/l's a pirated version of PowerPoint would never fork over the absurd $300 that MS is demanding for Power Point. Come on, this is pure bullshit. Like they actually produce any REAL updates anyways. Powerpoint today is basically the same as it was in '97. I'm not willing to pay more than 50 bucks for great games -- and these are pieces of software which actually involved real work to make, which actually did evolve, and which cost a lot of money to make. If you tell me it cost Outrage a lot of money to make Descent 3, I'll buy into that argument. If you tell me it cost MS a lot of money to upgrade PowerPoint 2000 to PowerPoint XP, I say that's a load of fucking bullshit.

As for people searching for Warez via search engines, that's mostly useless. Even using cross referencing, its difficult to get a good Warez page. 99% of all "warez" pages are really fronts for pop-up porno operations. When it comes to Warez, you really need to "be in" to be able to access it.

So WHAT? It's free, I take what I want (0)

Chronic Bluntt (579863) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562280)

So Macromedia is probably going to file a lawsuit soon against digital pirates looking to download their files for free -- that's just GREEDY BS. The fact is, if they weren't so money-grubbing, and offered their products for reasonable prices, they would have to deal with digital pirates like me. As it stands, their software is WAY too expensive, so I prefer to download as much as I please - for free - from P2P networks. They can cry all they want about lost revenue - I wouldn't have bought their programs anyway.

According to Google (3, Interesting)

guttentag (313541) | more than 11 years ago | (#3562368)

According to Google's Ad-Words Traffic Estimator:

Keyword Clicks/ Cost-Per- Cost/
Day Click Day
flash 660.0 $0.19 $123.42
crack 690.0 $0.12 $77.55
porn 1600.0 $0.24 $368.12
sex 1600.0 $0.24 $376.00
cowboy neal 0.1 $0.08 $0.02
flash mx crack <0.1 $0.11 $0.00

By that logic, I would have more success buying the keywords "cowboy neal" than with "flash mx crack." That's what scares me. Try it yourself [google.com].

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account