Re: OT: pricing and piracy

On Sun 18 Jun 2000 07:20:15pm, Ray M wrote: >I would like to find a store that accepts returns! Electronics Boutique. -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Sun 18 Jun 2000 07:28:32am, mracer wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software >and music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro >is $484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content >for which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the >casual, non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used >a pirated copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it >again for a year?

<snip> Why on earth use Office Pro? Use something cheaper, like Ability Office, which is forever being given away free on magazine cover CDs. Or even Star Office, which is free. -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

pqt2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > daxe wrote: > > > Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious > > zealot.) > BS, the only time it is relative is when someone tries to justify > their illegal, immoral or other generally unacceptable actions. Paul

A person who thinks there is an immutable, absolute right and wrong equally applicable to everyone is either too stupid to think/see outside their own little world or has been brainwashed by some religious organization or both. How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself by doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote > Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, > legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right".It's > either one or the other. Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious zealot.) Suppose a desperate person broke into your house to steal money to buy food for their starving child and you shot them dead. Killing people is wrong, unless it is to defend yourself or your property. So in this case, killing the intruder was right. However the intruder probably doesn't think it was right for you to kill them, since they were doing the right thing stealing to feed their starving child. But stealing is wrong, no matter the purpose or rationale. It is never right to let a child starve. So the child starves because you shot the intruder. Does that make killing the intruder wrong? Tell me, Bruce: What is the absolute right and wrong, legally or morally in this case? Remember, you don't get to use "should have" in your explanation, since it has already happened and you can't change it. ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Toni Lassila) writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >The point is; nobody NEEDS Office 2000 Pro to create a resum�. It's >like stealing a Ferrari and claiming you need a car to visit your sick >grandmother. There are more affordable versions of software for the >home user, and even as I share some of the concern that high software >prises do indeed create piracy, I don't think it's fair for people to >expect to get say Photoshop for the price of a single music CD. How >many people absolutely positively NEED Photoshop for anything? >

Are there demos for stuff like Photoshop, or publisher? If you think the software MIGHT suit your needs, or you'd like to maybe learn something about it(to *know* if you need it), how can you 'test drive' it? I'm not saying there AREN'T any demos - I've just never seen any... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. 1:45.49 minutes-GPLRank:342 as of 6/15/00 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Oh, for Christ's sake, stop trying to justify theft in this ridiculous >manner!! > >I use my piano once in a blue moon, but I didn't steal it just because I >felt that I shouldn't really have to pay full price seeing that I wouldn't >be using it frequently! Ditto my golf clubs and club membership......I don't >sneak onto the course and thieve a set of golf clubs simply because I only >play once or twice a year! > >Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, >legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right". It's >either one or the other.

Bruce, the problem here is that software IS a special case. Maybe we would like it not to be, but it just *IS* different from everything else. Since software is reproducable in an immaterial way, it is about the only product that can be "stolen" without actually taking something away. Taking it doesn't coincide with the other not having it anymore. This is kind of a new situation, and it doesn't fit all too well into our classical right/wrong scheme. We, as a society, determine all together what should be considered wrong and what should be considered right. In general, people agree pretty well about these things. The fact that there is such an enormous amount of pirated software going around is not necessarilly *only* an indication of how bad everything is going on the moral front. Categorizing all the people, who have pirated versions on their HD, as criminals just can't be right. 95% of them wouldn't think about stealing something from a supermarket. And that is not because they are too stupid to see that "pirated software is the same!!" I'm pretty confident that the majority has more than enough morality left and will honestly ask themselves the question whether they should pay for everything that is on their HD. If they REALLY make USE of it, they will probably pay for it. At least, that's how I feel about the situation. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is $484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable level would cause sales to go up and piracy to go down. I also think game software and music CD's are way over priced. Many music CD's are $15 to $25 dollars. How many have paid $15 for a CD because they like one or two songs? New games commonly sell for $49.95 How many times have you been burned?

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:28:32 GMT, mracer <[email hidden]> wrote: >It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and >music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is >$484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for >which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, >non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated >copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? The point is; nobody NEEDS Office 2000 Pro to create a resum�. It's like stealing a Ferrari and claiming you need a car to visit your sick grandmother. There are more affordable versions of software for the home user, and even as I share some of the concern that high software prises do indeed create piracy, I don't think it's fair for people to expect to get say Photoshop for the price of a single music CD. How many people absolutely positively NEED Photoshop for anything? >I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for >nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable Most expensive software compilers can be acquired for free under training or test licenses, so they work just like real except that you are not allowed to distribute any programs made with them. I think this is a fair deal, but obviously it might be a little hard to prevent documents printed with Word from being distributed.

Photoshop is expensive because it works and it is the best at what it does. I can't explain why Office is so expensive; in my experience Microsoft "Professional" products are poorly engineered, illogically functioning crap. There is plenty of low-priced software for nonprofessional use, including versions of Photoshop and Office (Microsoft Works.. I hope the irony of this title isn't lost on you). If you've been burned for buying software you didn't like, may I suggest purchasing at a store which accepts returns? And let's say you have a project for which you can charge $25 an hour for your time. If you buy a $50 game and play it for two hours, consider it paid for. If you play it a lot, you're getting your money's worth and supporting a company making a good product. Quit whining. Andrew mracer wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and > music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is > $484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for > which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, > non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated > copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? > I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for > nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable > level would cause sales to go up and piracy to go down. I also think > game software and music CD's are way over priced. Many music CD's are > $15 to $25 dollars. How many have paid $15 for a CD because they like > one or two songs? New games commonly sell for $49.95 How many times have > you been burned?

On 18 Jun 2000 17:31:56 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Are there demos for stuff like Photoshop, or publisher? If you think the >software MIGHT suit your needs, or you'd like to maybe learn something about >it(to *know* if you need it), how can you 'test drive' it? I'm not saying >there AREN'T any demos - I've just never seen any... Yeah, there is a trial version of Photoshop: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/demodnld.html BUT, the tryout version does not enable you to save, export or print artwork. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Skotty Flynn "skotty20" Nascar-Racing-Sims.Com: http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com The Ultimate Sim Racing Directory: http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com/directory/ The Garage Area Discussion Forums: http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi

I would like to find a store that accepts returns! "Turner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Photoshop is expensive because it works and it is the best at what itdoes. > > I can't explain why Office is so expensive; in my experience Microsoft > "Professional" products are poorly engineered, illogically functioningcrap. > > There is plenty of low-priced software for nonprofessional use, including > versions of Photoshop and Office (Microsoft Works.. I hope the irony ofthis

Quoted text (7 lines)

> title isn't lost on you). > > If you've been burned for buying software you didn't like, may I suggest > purchasing at a store which accepts returns? > > And let's say you have a project for which you can charge $25 an hour for > your time. If you buy a $50 game and play it for two hours, consider it

paid > for. If you play it a lot, you're getting your money's worth andsupporting

Quoted text (25 lines)

> a company making a good product. > > Quit whining. > > Andrew > > > > mracer wrote: > > > It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and > > music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is > > $484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for > > which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, > > non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated > > copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? > > I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for > > nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable > > level would cause sales to go up and piracy to go down. I also think > > game software and music CD's are way over priced. Many music CD's are > > $15 to $25 dollars. How many have paid $15 for a CD because they like > > one or two songs? New games commonly sell for $49.95 How many times have > > you been burned? > >

>Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, >legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right". It's >either one or the other. If you believe that you've got to be one of the most naive numbskulls I've never had the pleasure to meet. Life is filled with shades of gray, friend. Just about nothing is black or white. And nothing would stop you from occasionally using the piano down at some club you hang out at or at a friend's house. For that matter you can rent golf clubs and, generally, try them out before you buy them. (At least swing them at air, anyway.) I think the general problem being discussed here is the practice of the software industry to obfuscate as much as possible the full package of a piece of software until after money changes hands. If the industry really cared as much as they say about "casual" pirates they would be trying to come up with ways to extend the capabilities of demos and trial versions as well as short-term licenses. (Need office to write your resume and only your resume? 5 bucks for a one week license.) Instead, companies are concentrating on stopping the "professional" pirates who counterfit and sell products masquerading as the "real thing." In the scheme of thing, letting my little brother play with my copy of "Star Wars Racer" just isn't important to the company that made it. (Heck, considering I haven't installed or played it myself, there is no problem whatsoever.) However, if I were to buy Star Wars Racer online, get the copy delivered, and find it is a close-but-not-quite-exact counterfit, the company would have worries. The latter does lead to _major_ losses. -Tim -

daxe wrote: > Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious > zealot.) BS, the only time it is relative is when someone tries to justify their illegal, immoral or other generally unacceptable actions. Paul -- "Don't take yourself too serious since someone else just might and then what are you going to do!"

is that software IS a special case. Maybe we would >like >it not to be, but it just *IS* different from everything else. Nope. >Since software is reproducable in an immaterial way, it is about the only >product that can be "stolen" without actually taking something away. Taking it >doesn't coincide with the other not having it anymore. This is kind of a new >situation, and it doesn't fit all too well into our classical right/wrong >scheme. Actually, software is no different than any other form of intellectual property. Books, movies, music, pictures, software--they are all the same. In our current age of fast electronic transmition, the ability to quickly copy and "pirate" intellectual property is easier than ever, but software is not at all unique. However, all intellectual property is very different from other forms of property, Theft is, quite simply, not the same for each. They are treated with different legal rules and language. Much of the current hand-wringing over software is quite the same as struggles over the unauthorized copying of books in the 18th and 19th centuries. (And earlier, actually.) The intellecutal property that I deal with the most is of the printed sort. For the most part in this day and age, book piracy is a thing of the past. However, note that books are now incredibly available for free to just about anyone for limited amounts of time. I only buy a book when I really want to have it as part of my personal collection, otherwise I use the library. I believe that software will move towards similar setups eventually.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I'm pretty confident that the majority has more than enough morality left and >will honestly ask themselves the question whether they should pay for >everything >that is on their HD. If they REALLY make USE of it, they will probably pay for >it. > >At least, that's how I feel about the situation.

Not I, necessarily. I've got plenty of software that I haven't payed for. Granted, it's all freeware, but the effect on the industry is about the same. I make sure to look for free software that will do what I want instead of paying outrageous prices for some of the commercial software packages. In effect, the industry has "lost" revenue as I am not buying their wares. While the industry may love a definition that can call this immoral--profit is their only moral absolute, after all--I doubt many others would agree. -Tim

This was the same agrument back in the 80's....the only company that didn't seem to mind very much that there product, M$-DO$, was the most pirated went on to dominate them all...... mracer wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and > music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is > $484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for > which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, > non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated > copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? > I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for > nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable > level would cause sales to go up and piracy to go down. I also think > game software and music CD's are way over priced. Many music CD's are > $15 to $25 dollars. How many have paid $15 for a CD because they like > one or two songs? New games commonly sell for $49.95 How many times have > you been burned?

Toni Lassila <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:28:32 GMT, mracer <[email hidden]> wrote: > >It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and > >music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is > >$484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for > >which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, > >non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated > >copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year?

That's why you make sure you (or a close relative) works at a place where they basically bought a whole lot of software licenses, so many that they'll sell you Office 97 Pro for $12 and it's legal too!!!! (I'm dead serious here!!) That, and for Photoshop, who actually needs that? Paint Shop Pro is IMO more than I'll ever need and it's a little over 1/10 the price of Photoshop...and all the easier to get for free too... IMO, software over $50 is piracy...THERE ARE COMPUTERS THAT COST LESS THAN OFFICE PRO!!!! -- Kirk Lane [email hidden] GPLRank: 229.48 ICQ: 28171652 AIM: Kirker64 (IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client) "The time has come for me to kill this game Now open wide and say my name" - "Space Lord", Monster Magnet

On Mon 19 Jun 2000 02:38:37am, Ray M wrote: >Not in Houston! Don't they have a website? -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:19:29 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Then in that case, "friend", pop me into the naive numbskull enclosure >please. >You obviously do not have, or have not had, any involvement with the >practise of law....otherwise you would know that it is, indeed, a case of >either one or the other........"friend". I just popped in to see what is going on in the race sim world and much to my surprise..not much anything different..people griping about piracy...expectations of a new sim that will more than likely suck raw eggs....I have just this to say...if the ones who make this software would start pumping out quality stuff and have solid support...maybe people would stop downloading "unauthorized products" I don't say piracy..cause the true definition of Piracy is making copies and reselling as a gain for profit..and using unregistered software in a business..All and I mean ALL software companies need to have Toll-free support on company I had trouble with or product..I called their number and was on hold for 20 mins...when the support guy came on..he didn't know his ass from a horse's d**k...what did I learn...nada what did I get?...a f**king 25.00 phone bill...hell it's enough to make one go and dl shit...you may disagree but..that is just the way it is pal....and all of us have been a "thief" if you want to go there...like copied movies on Video..etc...etc..

pqt2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "When in Rome----" sound familiar? The same activity is right in some places but not in others, HOWEVER right and wrong are NOT relative. OK BUDDY whatever you say.... ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Not in Houston! "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Sun 18 Jun 2000 07:20:15pm, Ray M wrote: > > >I would like to find a store that accepts returns! > > Electronics Boutique. > > -- > David. > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > really." > (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh) >

>> Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious >> zealot.) > BS, the only time it is relative is when someone tries to justify >their illegal, immoral or other generally unacceptable actions. Paul Stupidity on display here in r.a.s--thanks for affirming my "faith" in the intelligence of the average being. -Tim

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop trying to justify theft in this ridiculous manner!! I use my piano once in a blue moon, but I didn't steal it just because I felt that I shouldn't really have to pay full price seeing that I wouldn't be using it frequently! Ditto my golf clubs and club membership......I don't sneak onto the course and thieve a set of golf clubs simply because I only play once or twice a year! Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right". It's either one or the other. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- mracer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and > music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is > $484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for > which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, > non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated > copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? > I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for > nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable > level would cause sales to go up and piracy to go down. I also think > game software and music CD's are way over priced. Many music CD's are > $15 to $25 dollars. How many have paid $15 for a CD because they like > one or two songs? New games commonly sell for $49.95 How many times have > you been burned? > > >

daxe wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > pqt2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > daxe wrote: > > > > > Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious > > > zealot.) > > BS, the only time it is relative is when someone tries to justify > > their illegal, immoral or other generally unacceptable actions. Paul > > A person who thinks there is an immutable, absolute right and wrong equally > applicable to everyone is either too stupid to think/see outside their own > little world or has been brainwashed by some religious organization or > both.

In my opinion I'm not stupid, at my age maybe senile but not stupid; don't live in my own little world, been more places and done more than many; may have been brainwashed by my Father who believed in only three thing and they was honesty, integrity and loyalty and it has served him well for 83 years and me for--(well, that's another meaningless story); and I sure as hell have never been accused of being religious, just a believer. > > How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. > If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for > that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself by > doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG > simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture?"When in Rome----" sound familiar? If it is right and expectable, as long as it is moral, in the country you are in then generally it is right(Let's don't start the Nazi Germany comparison since you know what I really mean). Probably if you killed that damn dog humanely (what ever that is) and ate it no one but PETA would hassle you. Now don't jump on me about the dog comments, I love my 10 year old Yellow Lab and would probably kill someone if they screwed with him but he still is just a dog. The bottom line is that in most all instances right is right and wrong is wrong. You can't be a little pregnant. Paul > > ~daxe > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- -- "Don't take yourself too serious since someone else just might and then what are you going to do!"

And just what did you display? Paul The Enigmatic One wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >> Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious > >> zealot.) > > BS, the only time it is relative is when someone tries to justify > >their illegal, immoral or other generally unacceptable actions. Paul > > Stupidity on display here in r.a.s--thanks for affirming my "faith" in > the intelligence of the average being. > > -Tim

-- "Don't take yourself too serious since someone else just might and then what are you going to do!"

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:35:09 GMT, [email hidden] (The Enigmatic One) wrote: Well, you made some good points here and it seems you don't disagree that much after all :-) > is that software IS a special case. Maybe we would >>like >>it not to be, but it just *IS* different from everything else. > > Nope. Not from everything else, but from most material goods surely.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Since software is reproducable in an immaterial way, it is about the only >>product that can be "stolen" without actually taking something away. Taking it >>doesn't coincide with the other not having it anymore. This is kind of a new >>situation, and it doesn't fit all too well into our classical right/wrong >>scheme. > > Actually, software is no different than any other form of intellectual >property. Books, movies, music, pictures, software--they are all the same. In >our current age of fast electronic transmition, the ability to quickly copy and >"pirate" intellectual property is easier than ever, but software is not at all >unique.

Agreed.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> However, all intellectual property is very different from other forms >of property, Theft is, quite simply, not the same for each. They are treated >with different legal rules and language. Much of the current hand-wringing >over software is quite the same as struggles over the unauthorized copying of >books in the 18th and 19th centuries. (And earlier, actually.) The >intellecutal property that I deal with the most is of the printed sort. For >the most part in this day and age, book piracy is a thing of the past. >However, note that books are now incredibly available for free to just about >anyone for limited amounts of time. I only buy a book when I really want to >have it as part of my personal collection, otherwise I use the library. I >believe that software will move towards similar setups eventually.

Agreed again. You've had more time to think about these matters :-)

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>I'm pretty confident that the majority has more than enough morality left and >>will honestly ask themselves the question whether they should pay for >>everything >>that is on their HD. If they REALLY make USE of it, they will probably pay for >>it. >> >>At least, that's how I feel about the situation. > > Not I, necessarily. I've got plenty of software that I haven't payed >for. Granted, it's all freeware, but the effect on the industry is about the >same. I make sure to look for free software that will do what I want instead >of paying outrageous prices for some of the commercial software packages. In >effect, the industry has "lost" revenue as I am not buying their wares. While >the industry may love a definition that can call this immoral--profit is their >only moral absolute, after all--I doubt many others would agree.

In terms of effects, there's indeed not much difference between using a freeware program and an illegal copy. Not photoshop/3D Studio/Office suffer most from their pirating, but actually the companies that produce simpler and less expensive software. In the end, the effect of freeware is the same. I think most typical home users of pirated Office/Photoshop/3D Studio copies reason that they don't want to pay for what they COULD do with that software, but only for what they ACTUALLY use it for. In the case of Photoshop and 3D Studio (sitting illegally on many harddrives out there...), they are mainly used to play around a bit. Producing some nice pictures to put on your homepage. Or amusing yourself with dreadfull animations even worse than typical holiday-photographs... :-) Typically no real productivity at all. Nobody would ever pay the full price for that software just to do these things. The price is only justified by the actual use that the real pros make of it. Maybe a better way to handle these problems would be to sell $10 personal "no-productivity" copies. Bundle it with a short manual and it might actually sell to a lot of people who are now playing around with pirate versions. JoH

"daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. > If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for > that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourselfby > doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG > simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? > > ~daxe Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. David G Fisher

daxe wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > pqt2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > "When in Rome----" sound familiar? > > The same activity is right in some places but not in others, HOWEVER right > and wrong are NOT relative. OK BUDDY whatever you say.... >

What's confusing you & others here is that you link right/wrong with legal/illegal. Many things are legal yet wrong, & vice versa. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +443.38 as of 6/19 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

>> "When in Rome----" sound familiar? > >The same activity is right in some places but not in others, HOWEVER right >and wrong are NOT relative. OK BUDDY whatever you say.... As I said, stupidity on parade. Nice to have something to laugh at, though, as much as it makes intelligent conversation impossible, eh? -Tim

>Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > >David G Fisher David here is worse than the other one. How do these people get online? -Tim

>I can only see this as either black or white.....no shades of grey. Until >(unless?) laws change to allow otherwise, or until technology comes up with >a solution to what I call "electronic theft" then that's the way I will >approach it. In other words....under the present international legal >regulations, software piracy is theft. Period. And you are wrong. Intellectual property theft is a completely different issue with different factors, definitions, and impacts than other types of theft. That's the fact here. You can say that they are both wrong and I wouldn't disagree with you, but the fact remains that ideas--intellectual property--are much different than things--"regular" property. -Tim

I wonder why?!! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Skotty Flynn <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > BUT, the tryout version does not enable you to save, export or print > artwork.

I agree that we each have the right to disagree but beyond that point I know that my feelings regarding "theft" are rock-solid, irrespective of whether the subject matter is intellectual, physical or electronic. I can only see this as either black or white.....no shades of grey. Until (unless?) laws change to allow otherwise, or until technology comes up with a solution to what I call "electronic theft" then that's the way I will approach it. In other words....under the present international legal regulations, software piracy is theft. Period. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Oh, for Christ's sake, stop trying to justify theft in this ridiculous > >manner!! > > > >I use my piano once in a blue moon, but I didn't steal it just because I > >felt that I shouldn't really have to pay full price seeing that I wouldn't > >be using it frequently! Ditto my golf clubs and club membership......I don't > >sneak onto the course and thieve a set of golf clubs simply because I only > >play once or twice a year! > > > >Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, > >legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right". It's > >either one or the other. > > Bruce, the problem here is that software IS a special case. Maybe we would like > it not to be, but it just *IS* different from everything else. > > Since software is reproducable in an immaterial way, it is about the only > product that can be "stolen" without actually taking something away. Taking it > doesn't coincide with the other not having it anymore. This is kind of a new > situation, and it doesn't fit all too well into our classical right/wrong > scheme. > > We, as a society, determine all together what should be considered wrong and > what should be considered right. In general, people agree pretty well about > these things. The fact that there is such an enormous amount of pirated software > going around is not necessarilly *only* an indication of how bad everything is > going on the moral front. Categorizing all the people, who have pirated versions > on their HD, as criminals just can't be right. 95% of them wouldn't think about > stealing something from a supermarket. And that is not because they are too > stupid to see that "pirated software is the same!!" > > I'm pretty confident that the majority has more than enough morality left and > will honestly ask themselves the question whether they should pay for everything > that is on their HD. If they REALLY make USE of it, they will probably pay for > it. > > At least, that's how I feel about the situation. > > JoH > > > > > > ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- > --------------------------------------------------------------

Then in that case, "friend", pop me into the naive numbskull enclosure please. You obviously do not have, or have not had, any involvement with the practise of law....otherwise you would know that it is, indeed, a case of either one or the other........"friend". -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_da35.7$[email hidden]... > > If you believe that you've got to be one of the most naive numbskulls > I've never had the pleasure to meet. Life is filled with shades of gray, > friend. Just about nothing is black or white. > > And nothing would stop you from occasionally using the piano down at > some club you hang out at or at a friend's house. For that matter you can rent > golf clubs and, generally, try them out before you buy them. (At least swing > them at air, anyway.) I think the general problem being discussed here is the > practice of the software industry to obfuscate as much as possible the full > package of a piece of software until after money changes hands. If the > industry really cared as much as they say about "casual" pirates they would be > trying to come up with ways to extend the capabilities of demos and trial > versions as well as short-term licenses. (Need office to write your resume and > only your resume? 5 bucks for a one week license.) Instead, companies are > concentrating on stopping the "professional" pirates who counterfit and sell > products masquerading as the "real thing." In the scheme of thing, letting my > little brother play with my copy of "Star Wars Racer" just isn't important to > the company that made it. (Heck, considering I haven't installed or played it > myself, there is no problem whatsoever.) However, if I were to buy Star Wars > Racer online, get the copy delivered, and find it is a > close-but-not-quite-exact counterfit, the company would have worries. The > latter does lead to _major_ losses. > > > -Tim > > - >

No doubt, by this statement, we draw the conclusion that you classify yourself as having an Intelligence Quotient above (perhaps below?) the of the average human being? What, pray, IS that average measurment? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kBg35.9$[email hidden]... > > >> Right and wrong are relative, not absolute (unless you are a religious > >> zealot.) > > BS, the only time it is relative is when someone tries to justify > >their illegal, immoral or other generally unacceptable actions. Paul > > Stupidity on display here in r.a.s--thanks for affirming my "faith" in > the intelligence of the average being. > > > -Tim >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >"daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. >> If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for >> that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself >by >> doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG >> simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? >> >> ~daxe > >Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > >David G Fisher

Pigs are more intelligent than the smartest dog (scientifically tested!). Yet we kill them by the millions in unspeakable circumstances. And why? Because they don't obey orders and LOOK stupid. There's something seriously wrong with us, too, it seems.. Just an observation. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing > with Napster and MP3's. The ultimate effect on the movie industry, let > alone the music industry, could be catastrophic, to the extent that, worst > case scenario, nobody invests in either. As a lifelong musician and former punk rocker, I can't say that pouring money into the music industry does anything positive, but I do essentially agree with you. ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In article <sbt35.11321$A%[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. >> If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for >> that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself >by >> doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG >> simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? >> >> ~daxe > >Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > >David G Fisher

You would forcefully attack someone for killing and eating a dog in THAILAND? Just because it doesn't fit your values? In other words, it's not illegal there, but you'd still punish them? Amazing... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. 1:35.98 minutes-GPLRank:378 as of 6/18/00 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "daxe" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>A person who thinks there is an immutable, absolute right and wrong equally >applicable to everyone is either too stupid to think/see outside their own >little world or has been brainwashed by some religious organization or both. > >How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. >If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for >that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself by >doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG >simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? > >~daxe

If you killed and ate a cow in India, you'd be subject to serious punishment also. That same action happens all the time in the US, at least... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. 1:35.98 minutes-GPLRank:378 as of 6/18/00 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message > there's a > Frenchman who eats insects. There's a group of Americans on an island in the middle of nowhere eating insects (and rats) in hopes of winning 1,000,000$ USD. ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > there's a > > Frenchman who eats insects. > > There's a group of Americans on an island in the middle of nowhere eating > insects (and rats) in hopes of winning 1,000,000$ USD. >

Proof that there is no such thing as original television programming anymore. In Switzerland, I can watch the American, British, Swiss, German or Austrian version of "Who wants to be a millionaire?" (not that I would want to). I can also watch various country-specific clones of "Expedition Robinson" and I can also watch various countries' versions of "Big Brother", where a bunch of dull people are locked up in a storage container with (gasp!) no TV, radio or newspaper for 100 days, and everyone can play virtual voyeur and watch as they pick their noses or hoover the carpet. Arg. No wonder I pile cash into my computer and still have just a small B&W TV. Stephen

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:58:48 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. Course they're not wrong - Japanese eat whale testicles, there's a Frenchman who eats insects. The only thing that's wrong is to project one's own standards onto another culture and then judge them by it. Nowt to do with piracy though.... John

Wake up and smell the flowers.

I don't wish to upset you but I think that, if I were a Thai and the menu offered roast dog or fried forearm of Fisher, I'd choose the former. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sbt35.11321$A%[email hidden]... > > "daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. > > If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for > > that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself > by > > doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG > > simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? > > > > ~daxe > > Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in > front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > > David G Fisher >

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:59:51 -0700, "Kirk Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote: >IMO, software over $50 is piracy...THERE ARE COMPUTERS THAT COST LESS THAN >OFFICE PRO!!!! Wake up and smell the flowers.

I wondered if any of the "good folk" who think that prices are too high and cause the piracy, and that, anyway, it's not really a loss to anybody, have thought about the fact that (at least flight sims) have been canceled, development teams sacked and developers' doors closed (Looking Glass). Clearly, increased sales were needed to keep them alive; maybe not to the extent claimed, but piracy was a factor. If you copy for a friend, or get a pirated copy, you are just contributing to the death of what you enjoy. Just my thoughts. Bill Yowell A previous poster stated: > > >IMO, software over $50 is piracy...THERE ARE COMPUTERS THAT COST LESS THAN > >OFFICE PRO!!!! >

William Yowell wrote: > If you copy for a friend, or get a pirated > copy, you are just contributing to the death of what you enjoy. Just my > thoughts. > Bill Yowell Very true. And yet while I do agree with you, there are 2 sides to every story. Let's not leave out corporate greed. To make money, for some, is not enough. Some have to make a *lot* of money or they take their goodies & go home. :-( I think Kirk Lane has a valid point as well as you. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +443.38 as of 6/19 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:39:41 -0500, William Yowell <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I wondered if any of the "good folk" who think that prices are too high and >cause the piracy, and that, anyway, it's not really a loss to anybody, have >thought about the fact that (at least flight sims) have been canceled, >development teams sacked and developers' doors closed (Looking Glass). Clearly, >increased sales were needed to keep them alive; maybe not to the extent >claimed, but piracy was a factor. If you copy for a friend, or get a pirated >copy, you are just contributing to the death of what you enjoy. Just my >thoughts. >Bill Yowell

Maybe. But, I think those people that pirated the games wouldn't even buy them if there was no alternative. If you really like a game then you need a manual and the patches that are guaranteed to follow. You get none of that with a pirated game. The amount of money they say they lost is based on *if* those people actually bought the software they pirated. The fact is they wouldn't buy the software so the actuall loss is probably a lot lower than their convoluted figures. -- Nos

Whatever. I really can't be bothered. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vaw35.16$[email hidden]... > > >I can only see this as either black or white.....no shades of grey. Until > >(unless?) laws change to allow otherwise, or until technology comes up with > >a solution to what I call "electronic theft" then that's the way I will > >approach it. In other words....under the present international legal > >regulations, software piracy is theft. Period. > > And you are wrong. Intellectual property theft is a completely > different issue with different factors, definitions, and impacts than other > types of theft. That's the fact here. You can say that they are both wrong > and I wouldn't disagree with you, but the fact remains that ideas--intellectual > property--are much different than things--"regular" property. > > > -Tim >

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing > with Napster and MP3's. Thank you. A *perfect* example of sickening, corporate greed in the extreme! On one side, we have multi-multi millionaires such as Metallica and other big names. These greedy SOB's are worried to death about a bunch of kids who would like to hear their songs for free. If they can't begrudge them a few pence, when these "stars" are already obscenely wealthy to begin with, is just idiotic. Just as I stated once before. Some things are legal, but just plain *wrong*. This is one of those. :-( -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +443.38 as of 6/19 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

On 20 Jun 2000 21:57:49 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, "daxe" <[email hidden]> >writes: > >>A person who thinks there is an immutable, absolute right and wrong equally >>applicable to everyone is either too stupid to think/see outside their own >>little world or has been brainwashed by some religious organization or both. >> >>How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. >>If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for >>that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself by >>doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG >>simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? >> >>~daxe > >If you killed and ate a cow in India, you'd be subject to serious punishment >also. >That same action happens all the time in the US, at least... >Eldred

Well it boils down to one thing...you eat pork...beef..etc..etc you will get clogged freaking arteries..and drop dead eventually watch bacon as it has sit for several hours..coated in yes..thick grease...and that shit loves to play hell on your arteries..just ask the millions who have had by-pass...not to mention those that drop dead where they stand.. If animals were as mobile as us..we 'd been extinct long ago...because we'd be inferior:)

In article <50Y35.12887$A%[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>A person doesn't score a single point with me due to their affiliation with >any group, especially those mentioned above. I have no respect at all for >people who are weak and feel the need to align themselves with a group to >feel stronger, and who blindly follow the teachings and traditions of that >group. > >The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. >When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to >me. > >I thank thee for your time, >

How could you be so far out in left field? We were talking about killing animals to EAT - not just for pleasure/sport. Are you a vegetarian? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +85.99 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <IwX35.22$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (The Enigmatic One) writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> A complete non-issue, here. Many other factors contributed to the >current sorry state of flight sims--piracy is not the problem. By your >logic, >if I decide not to buy a flight sim game I'm just as guilty of killing the >genre. (I am, actually, as lost sales are lost sales. And I tend to buy >things when they go into the discount bin instead of new, making me a rather >non-helpful customer.)

I usually do the same thing. Recently, I've been buying a lot of 'Collection' packages. 3 or 4 games together for less than ONE of them was originally... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +85.99 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Not really...... There not selling those titles in the bargain bin at a loss I'll bet you anything you want on that. SO............. If a title in the bargain bin can still bring a company a few bucks profit, why not just release NEW titles at a price level that will cause more copies to be sold initially? I tell you right now there is next to nothing out there I'm paying 50 bucks for as far as software goes. Get that number down around 25-30 bucks though then I'll bite. As far as music CD prices go this is one of the biggest freakin rip-offs ever. How can you justify a media that cost pennies being priced higher than a much more complicated type of media such as a audio cassette. Total horse shit if you ask me. The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IwX35.22$[email hidden]... > > >I wondered if any of the "good folk" who think that prices are too highand > >cause the piracy, and that, anyway, it's not really a loss to anybody,have > >thought about the fact that (at least flight sims) have been canceled, > >development teams sacked and developers' doors closed (Looking Glass). > >Clearly, > >increased sales were needed to keep them alive; maybe not to the extent > >claimed, but piracy was a factor. If you copy for a friend, or get apirated > >copy, you are just contributing to the death of what you enjoy. Just my > >thoughts. > > A complete non-issue, here. Many other factors contributed to the > current sorry state of flight sims--piracy is not the problem. By yourlogic, > if I decide not to buy a flight sim game I'm just as guilty of killing the > genre. (I am, actually, as lost sales are lost sales. And I tend to buy > things when they go into the discount bin instead of new, making me arather > non-helpful customer.) > > > -Tim >

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I wondered if any of the "good folk" who think that prices are too high and >cause the piracy, and that, anyway, it's not really a loss to anybody, have >thought about the fact that (at least flight sims) have been canceled, >development teams sacked and developers' doors closed (Looking Glass). >Clearly, >increased sales were needed to keep them alive; maybe not to the extent >claimed, but piracy was a factor. If you copy for a friend, or get a pirated >copy, you are just contributing to the death of what you enjoy. Just my >thoughts.

A complete non-issue, here. Many other factors contributed to the current sorry state of flight sims--piracy is not the problem. By your logic, if I decide not to buy a flight sim game I'm just as guilty of killing the genre. (I am, actually, as lost sales are lost sales. And I tend to buy things when they go into the discount bin instead of new, making me a rather non-helpful customer.) -Tim

>An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing >with Napster and MP3's. The ultimate effect on the movie industry, let >alone the music industry, could be catastrophic, to the extent that, worst >case scenario, nobody invests in either. Invests? Invests? You speak as if monitary gain is the only conceivable reason to make music or movies. Friend, I pity you. -Tim

>I think it's probably because they taste better, Jo. > >(They can be taught to obey orders, in exactly yhe same way as a dog can be >trained.) But usually smarter. And I hear they taste quite good. Dogs, that is. -Tim

"Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in > >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > > > >David G Fisher > > Pigs are more intelligent than the smartest dog (scientifically tested!).Yet we > kill them by the millions in unspeakable circumstances. And why? Becausethey

Quoted text (7 lines)

> don't obey orders and LOOK stupid. > > There's something seriously wrong with us, too, it seems.. > > Just an observation. > > JoH

I agree 100%. David G Fisher

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:58:48 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in > >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > > Course they're not wrong - Japanese eat whale testicles, there's a > Frenchman who eats insects. The only thing that's wrong is to project > one's own standards onto another culture and then judge them by it. > > Nowt to do with piracy though.... > > John

You're right, this has nothing to do with piracy, so I'll make this my last post on this thread. As we all know, an immeasurable amount of horrible acts have been committed in the name of culture, religion, race, and nationality. A person doesn't score a single point with me due to their affiliation with any group, especially those mentioned above. I have no respect at all for people who are weak and feel the need to align themselves with a group to feel stronger, and who blindly follow the teachings and traditions of that group. The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to me. I thank thee for your time, David G Fisher

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:02:57 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: ...... >The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. >When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to >me. Hmmm... There's no way this thread is getting back on topic ever again :-) David, ultimately there is only a wrong/right because there are HUMAN beings. You can't derive moral values from nature. So if man decides that it is ok kill something for pleasure, then it IS ok. As I see it, we just have trouble making our value system *consistent* from a rational (as rational as possible) point of view. Like: we don't want to kill baby seals because they look cute, but we love killing sharks because they eat a human being every now and then (which is VERY rare BTW). Ultimately they just act the way their instinct tells them to, and there is no reason to condemn them. Like: if an "innocent" child gets killed, we are more upset than when an also totally innocent adult gets killed (just think about it: the adult has had a chance to PROVE that he is a good person; the child might have grown into a criminal) Like: (anyone can go on many more pages..) JoH

I agree 100%. David G Fisher

An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing with Napster and MP3's. The ultimate effect on the movie industry, let alone the music industry, could be catastrophic, to the extent that, worst case scenario, nobody invests in either. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- William Yowell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I wondered if any of the "good folk" who think that prices are too high and > cause the piracy, and that, anyway, it's not really a loss to anybody, have > thought about the fact that (at least flight sims) have been canceled, > development teams sacked and developers' doors closed (Looking Glass). Clearly, > increased sales were needed to keep them alive; maybe not to the extent > claimed, but piracy was a factor. If you copy for a friend, or get a pirated > copy, you are just contributing to the death of what you enjoy. Just my > thoughts. > Bill Yowell > > A previous poster stated: > > > > > >IMO, software over $50 is piracy...THERE ARE COMPUTERS THAT COST LESS THAN > > >OFFICE PRO!!!! > > >

I think it's probably because they taste better, Jo. (They can be taught to obey orders, in exactly yhe same way as a dog can be trained.) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> How about this Paul: in some parts of the world they routinely eat dogs. > >> If you killed a dog and ate it in this country you could be prosecuted for > >> that action. In those parts of the world you are simply feeding yourself > >by > >> doing something completely acceptable. Are the people in Thailand WRONG > >> simply because that action doesn't fit in in this culture? > >> > >> ~daxe > > > >Yes. They are horribly wrong, and stupid. If someone tried to do that in > >front of me, they'd be eating my forearm. > > > >David G Fisher > > Pigs are more intelligent than the smartest dog (scientifically tested!). Yet we > kill them by the millions in unspeakable circumstances. And why? Because they > don't obey orders and LOOK stupid. > > There's something seriously wrong with us, too, it seems.. > > Just an observation. > > JoH > > ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- > --------------------------------------------------------------

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <50Y35.12887$A%[email hidden]>, "David GFisher" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >A person doesn't score a single point with me due to their affiliationwith > >any group, especially those mentioned above. I have no respect at all for > >people who are weak and feel the need to align themselves with a group to > >feel stronger, and who blindly follow the teachings and traditions ofthat

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >group. > > > >The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. > >When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to > >me. > > > >I thank thee for your time, > > > > How could you be so far out in left field? We were talking about killing > animals to EAT - not just for pleasure/sport. Are you a vegetarian?

Being against killing for pleasure is "out in left field"? Ok. In some parts of Africa for example, people unfortunately have to eat whatever food is available. Most other people eat for "pleasure". If people only ate an amount and type of food that was necessary for good health (as dictated by nature), then we wouldn't collectively be so damn fat (and getting fatter every day) and unhealthy. David G Fisher

In article <[email hidden]>, Bill White <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>If you killed and ate a cow in India, you'd be subject to serious punishment >>also. >>That same action happens all the time in the US, at least... >>Eldred > > Well it boils down to one thing...you eat pork...beef..etc..etc > you will get clogged freaking arteries..and drop dead eventually > watch bacon as it has sit for several hours..coated in yes..thick > grease...and that shit loves to play hell on your arteries..just > ask the millions who have had by-pass...not to mention those > that drop dead where they stand.. If animals were as mobile as > us..we 'd been extinct long ago...because we'd be inferior:)

Eat right, exercise, stay in shape...die anyway...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +85.99 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <oI945.13565$A%[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> How could you be so far out in left field? We were talking about killing >> animals to EAT - not just for pleasure/sport. Are you a vegetarian? > > >Being against killing for pleasure is "out in left field"? > >Ok.

The 'left field' comment was about your jump from talking about food to talking about killing for pleasure. Hey, I'm against 'sport' hunting, too. If the animals could use weapons too, *then* maybe it would be a sport...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +85.99 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I wholeheartedly agree. Hunting to survive is the unfortunate fact of life in some places, albeit most of those peoples diets still depend principally on vegetables. Gorillas grow to 500lbs living in the same forests that humans sometimes live in , and yet they live exclusively off of plants, so it is not like humans would die without meat, its not a very efficient way of getting protein. It would indeed be more sporting to at least go hunting with something less than a rifle with a scope.

EldredP wrote: > Eat right, exercise, stay in shape...die anyway...<g> > > Eldred Really!! Might as well enjoy your meals. I'd sure hate to die for no reason....<g> -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing >with Napster and MP3's. I don't find the MP3/Napster thing at all alarming, except for the astounding lack of insight and intelligence it implies throughout the music industry. Napster shows there's a tremendous desire in the market for people to increase their music collection, and to increase the variety of music they listen to. Two enourmously valuable trends in any market, but things that the recording inducstry currently makes very difficult for consumers to do. If they had HALF a brain they'd recognize the net as a tool that could revitalize the recording industry. It's not a threat unless you're too dumb to take advantage of it. Just one example. The average CD-purchasing consumer spends $100 per year on music CDs. So the record company could offer free downloads of any songs you want for a subscription fee of $10/month, and increase their revenue right there - while at the same time operating the greatest marketing operation of all time, where your customers are encouraged to continually sample all of your new products. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

As a former and current investor I can say that pouring money into anything can be likened to flushing dollar bills down the toilet. However, it can just as easily be compared with having the reserve bank keep ones bank account continually topped up. One takes one's chances. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing > > with Napster and MP3's. The ultimate effect on the movie industry, let > > alone the music industry, could be catastrophic, to the extent that, worst > > case scenario, nobody invests in either. > > As a lifelong musician and former punk rocker, I can't say that pouring > money into the music industry does anything positive, but I do essentially > agree with you. > > ~daxe > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Yes, I do apologise for my error. I should have realised that corporations such as Sony, Time-Warner, Disney, Lucas Films etcetera and so forth ad infnitum are into music and movies simply for the soul-warming experience. Sorry for the mistake. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wxX35.23$[email hidden]... > > >An interesting....and alarming.....parallel to this is what is happeneing > >with Napster and MP3's. The ultimate effect on the movie industry, let > >alone the music industry, could be catastrophic, to the extent that, worst > >case scenario, nobody invests in either. > > Invests? Invests? You speak as if monitary gain is the only > conceivable reason to make music or movies. Friend, I pity you. > > > -Tim >

I must remember that the next time I feel a sense of deep satisfaction when I swat a bothersome mozzie. I now see the light and will, instead, feel deeply sorrowful. In fact, I might simply berate it and shoo it outside. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:50Y35.12887$A%[email hidden]... > > > The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. > When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to > me. >

Eat for "pleasure"??? Sure, eating can be a most pleasurable experience......but I would estimate that about 100% of us eat to exist. If you wish to lay blame for the fact that humans are essentially carnivores then please refer to either nature, your God (if you believe in same) or some higher intelligence. But don't blame US! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oI945.13565$A%[email hidden]... > "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <50Y35.12887$A%[email hidden]>, "David G > Fisher" > > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > >A person doesn't score a single point with me due to their affiliation > with > > >any group, especially those mentioned above. I have no respect at all for > > >people who are weak and feel the need to align themselves with a group to > > >feel stronger, and who blindly follow the teachings and traditions of > that > > >group. > > > > > >The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. > > >When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to > > >me. > > > > > >I thank thee for your time, > > > > > > > How could you be so far out in left field? We were talking about killing > > animals to EAT - not just for pleasure/sport. Are you a vegetarian? > > > Being against killing for pleasure is "out in left field"? > > Ok. > > In some parts of Africa for example, people unfortunately have to eat > whatever food is available. Most other people eat for "pleasure". > > If people only ate an amount and type of food that was necessary for good > health (as dictated by nature), then we wouldn't collectively be so damn fat > (and getting fatter every day) and unhealthy. > > > David G Fisher > > >

Fork and salad bowl, perhaps? :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Loosay2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It > would indeed be more sporting to at least go hunting with something less than a > rifle with a scope.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:37:40 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Being against killing for pleasure is "out in left field"? That wasn't the point. In the US you, from necessity, eat cows, sheep, pigs etc. In France they add horses, in Thailand they add dogs, in Malaysia I've seen rat, monkey, bat, in Japan snake, whale testicles and various unsavoury parts of fish. All out of necessity. In India you'd be strung up for eating a cow, whereas you condemn a Thai for eating dog. Who is right and who is wrong? You live by the rules of your country, and to judge someone whose standards you don't understand by your own is the only thing that's wrong. In the west we tend not to eat cute things and get upset when others do (dolphins, dogs, rabbits etc), but that doesn't make it wrong. >If people only ate an amount and type of food that was necessary for good >health (as dictated by nature), then we wouldn't collectively be so damn fat >(and getting fatter every day) and unhealthy. In general you'll find people in Asia a lot slimmer and healthier than us over here in the west - so whose diet is wrong in that regard? </rhetoric> John

On 22 Jun 2000 01:50:48 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >The 'left field' comment was about your jump from talking about food to talking >about killing for pleasure. Hey, I'm against 'sport' hunting, too. If the >animals could use weapons too, *then* maybe it would be a sport...<g> Haha, the first time I stand in front of a hungry lion and he decides not to rip me apart out of preservation of the human species I'll become a vegetarian. Darwinism got mankind to the point we are, and now we are "so advanced" we throw Darwinism out the window. Survival of the fittest is no longer a human trait. Whether for better or for worse is moot. John

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:37:40 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Being against killing for pleasure is "out in left field"? > > That wasn't the point. In the US you, from necessity, eat cows, sheep, > pigs etc. In France they add horses, in Thailand they add dogs, in > Malaysia I've seen rat, monkey, bat, in Japan snake, whale testicles > and various unsavoury parts of fish. > > All out of necessity

Necessity? LOL. People choose what they eat with selfishness, no self control, and gluttony being the deciding factors. David G Fisher

To hell with all of that. What do you think about F1 2000? :-) -- [email hidden] "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 22 Jun 2000 01:50:48 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >The 'left field' comment was about your jump from talking about food to talking > >about killing for pleasure. Hey, I'm against 'sport' hunting, too. If the > >animals could use weapons too, *then* maybe it would be a sport...<g> > > Haha, the first time I stand in front of a hungry lion and he decides > not to rip me apart out of preservation of the human species I'll > become a vegetarian. > > Darwinism got mankind to the point we are, and now we are "so > advanced" we throw Darwinism out the window. Survival of the fittest > is no longer a human trait. Whether for better or for worse is moot. > > John

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On 22 Jun 2000 01:50:48 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > >>The 'left field' comment was about your jump from talking about food to talking >>about killing for pleasure. Hey, I'm against 'sport' hunting, too. If the >>animals could use weapons too, *then* maybe it would be a sport...<g> > >Haha, the first time I stand in front of a hungry lion and he decides >not to rip me apart out of preservation of the human species I'll >become a vegetarian. > >Darwinism got mankind to the point we are, and now we are "so >advanced" we throw Darwinism out the window. Survival of the fittest >is no longer a human trait. Whether for better or for worse is moot.

We shouldn't take "survival of the fittest" too literally. It just means that best adaption to existing circumstances gives an advantage (which is limited in space and time). It's not some law of nature which can be obeyed or neglected, though. Rather a way of describing the trend that you can recognise through evolution. The "eat or be eaten" view on SOTF is therefore a rather limited approach. There are many reasons out there to argue that the principle even applies to a world with human beings. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Joe62 wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > I don't find the MP3/Napster thing at all alarming, except for the > astounding lack of insight and intelligence it implies throughout the > music industry. > > Napster shows there's a tremendous desire in the market for people to > increase their music collection, and to increase the variety of music > they listen to. Two enourmously valuable trends in any market, but > things that the recording inducstry currently makes very difficult for > consumers to do. If they had HALF a brain they'd recognize the net as > a tool that could revitalize the recording industry. It's not a threat > unless you're too dumb to take advantage of it. > > Just one example. The average CD-purchasing consumer spends $100 per > year on music CDs. So the record company could offer free downloads of > any songs you want for a subscription fee of $10/month, and increase > their revenue right there - while at the same time operating the > greatest marketing operation of all time, where your customers are > encouraged to continually sample all of your new products.

Considering that the sex-industry has done something similar for years, I'm a little surprised that so few others have followed, apparently they make tons of money on this... The potential is enormous, especially now with cheap CD-R's and all that, compiling my own CD's with only songs that I like from various artists (when was the last time you bought a music CD where you loved every song ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Greg Cisko wrote: > > To hell with all of that. What do you think about F1 2000? I don't ...:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:28:32 GMT, mracer <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>It is my opinion that pricing causes most of the piracy of software and >music. Adobe Photoshop 5.5 is $539.95, Microsoft Office 2000 Pro is >$484.95 For a professional using these packages to create content for >which they are paid, these are probably bargains, but for the casual, >non pro user they seem very high. How many people have used a pirated >copy of Office to create a resume and then not used it again for a year? >I don't know if it would be possible, but what about lower prices for >nonprofessional use. I believe lowering prices to a much more reasonable >level would cause sales to go up and piracy to go down. I also think >game software and music CD's are way over priced. Many music CD's are >$15 to $25 dollars. How many have paid $15 for a CD because they like >one or two songs? New games commonly sell for $49.95 How many times have >you been burned? > > >

For my part, I think piracy is good for one thing. What I mean by that, is that, we can try new games, and if it is good or really good, and I'm speaking for myself, I'm willing to pay big for it. No problems. I have bought in the past some EA Sports shit, like NHL 2000, around $ 50.00, and the box is sitting in a closet right now, I have never been able to see the intro of the game, because of a bug in their system. I get a message like : this program will be closed because it has made general protection fault in nhl2k.icd. (I get it from the Original CD, right out from the box) I think that they have pushed a little too much their CD protection, and I have to pay for it. Plus, they never reply to our messages or fax over there. I have also bought EA F1 2000, and this one it is looking very good, but the AI of that game is the worst I have never seen in a game. So now, before I put money on a game, I have tried it and I know what I will get for what I pay. Like right now, I'm trying NFSPU and it is a jewel. I'm going out to buy it this monday, whatever the price. It is very good ! That's all !

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mario Grenier) writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>I have bought in the past some EA Sports shit, like NHL 2000, around $ >50.00, and the box is sitting in a closet right now, I have never been >able to see the intro of the game, because of a bug in their system. > >I get a message like : > > this program will be closed because it has made general protection >fault in nhl2k.icd. (I get it from the Original CD, right out from the >box) > >I think that they have pushed a little too much their CD protection, >and I have to pay for it.

If the program actually didn't WORK, you should have been able to get your money back. It wouldn't help you enjoy the game, but you wouldn't be out $50... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +77.11 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: >The potential is enormous, especially now with cheap CD-R's and all >that, compiling my own CD's with only songs that I like from various >artists (when was the last time you bought a music CD where you loved >every song ? Rush - Moving Pictures :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +77.11 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:24:26 GMT, The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >>Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, >>legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right". It's >>either one or the other. > > If you believe that you've got to be one of the most naive numbskulls >I've never had the pleasure to meet. Life is filled with shades of gray, >friend. Just about nothing is black or white. >

What's all this about? Have you folks *ever* heard of Linux, StarOffice and The Gimp? Free? Hello? Anybody home? Uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) Ever wondered what's wrong with the world? http://bnetwork.com/ PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:24:26 GMT, The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>Can't you understand that something is either right or wrong (morally, > >>legally or both)? It can't be "a little bit wrong" or "mostly right". It's > >>either one or the other. > > > > If you believe that you've got to be one of the most naive numbskulls > >I've never had the pleasure to meet. Life is filled with shades of gray, > >friend. Just about nothing is black or white. > > > > What's all this about? Have you folks *ever* heard of > Linux, StarOffice and The Gimp? Free? Hello? Anybody home? >

Nope Uwe, folks just don't get it. You can't pirate or steal what is free for the taking in the first place. For some reason, they gotta make money on everything in sight which just invites problems. Just for giggles, check out rec.aviation.simulators. There's a *long* thread on Open Source & the GPL. Imagine though, preaching open source to a mostly M$ crowd! That guy was just *asking* for trouble! <GG> That guy got called a "GPL Nazi" by one irate poster. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> If you believe that you've got to be one of the most naive numbskulls >>I've never had the pleasure to meet. Life is filled with shades of gray, >>friend. Just about nothing is black or white. >> > >What's all this about? Have you folks *ever* heard of >Linux, StarOffice and The Gimp? Free? Hello? Anybody home?

We've mentioned and discussed freeware actually. I've cost software companies lots of money (lost potential sales--which is why piracy was being decried) because I try to choose freeware alternitives. I don't think that's wrong--most would agree--but the companies would love to find a way to make freeware "wrong." -Tim

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>EldredP wrote: >> >> In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >The potential is enormous, especially now with cheap CD-R's and all >> >that, compiling my own CD's with only songs that I like from various >> >artists (when was the last time you bought a music CD where you loved >> >every song ? >> >> Rush - Moving Pictures :) > >For me it was John Fogerty - Blue Moon Swamp.....:-) > >But those CD's are far and few..... >

...as we've just proven...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:17:40 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Necessity? >LOL. >People choose what they eat with selfishness, no self control, and gluttony >being the deciding factors. People eat what is available in the shops - If I feel like eating fugu would you consider it reasonable to fly to Shimonoseki in order to eat? No, therefore I stick to haggis. John

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:34:25 +0200, Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >We shouldn't take "survival of the fittest" too literally. It just means that >best adaption to existing circumstances gives an advantage (which is limited in >space and time). It's not some law of nature which can be obeyed or neglected, >though. Rather a way of describing the trend that you can recognise through >evolution. My point exactly, although I would argue that to some extent at least man has chosen to neglect. In a herd of gazelle typically the weaker or crippled ones will be less able to escape from lion attacks and will therefore be "pruned". This, by Darwinism, means gazelles get stronger and better adapted. Humans, on the other hand, shepherd anyone weaker either mentally or physically, thus denying the level of improvement afforded to gazelles. John

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: > > >The potential is enormous, especially now with cheap CD-R's and all > >that, compiling my own CD's with only songs that I like from various > >artists (when was the last time you bought a music CD where you loved > >every song ? > > Rush - Moving Pictures :)

For me it was John Fogerty - Blue Moon Swamp.....:-) But those CD's are far and few..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:57:21 +0100, John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:34:25 +0200, Jo Helsen ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>We shouldn't take "survival of the fittest" too literally. It just means that >>best adaption to existing circumstances gives an advantage (which is limited in >>space and time). It's not some law of nature which can be obeyed or neglected, >>though. Rather a way of describing the trend that you can recognise through >>evolution. > >My point exactly, although I would argue that to some extent at least >man has chosen to neglect. >In a herd of gazelle typically the weaker or crippled ones will be >less able to escape from lion attacks and will therefore be "pruned". >This, by Darwinism, means gazelles get stronger and better adapted. > >Humans, on the other hand, shepherd anyone weaker either mentally or >physically, thus denying the level of improvement afforded to >gazelles.

I still think you (and most people, btw) are looking at this from a much too limited perspective. As I said, "evolution" and therefore also "survival of the fittest" is not somekind of "process" at work. Rather it is a label that we assign to the course of things. Reality is not aware of any general rule that has to be obeyed or something. There is nothing to neglect or to comply to. That's why getting rid of the weak and helpless wouldn't guarantee us a faster evolution of mankind or a superior race. It is a simplification. Hitler was wrong on that one, too (the poor dumbass :-) ) The simple, straightforward, interpretation of the "survival of the fittest"-principle in the world of animals is just one possible manifestation of what we call "evolution". It also is the incarnation that is the easiest to recognise, and therefore it is all too often simply used as a synonym. But a more complex environment/interactions might generate completely different mechanisms in which these simple rules do NOT show the way to go. Just consider the recent shift in importance from "physical strength" to "brainpower". There might be a similar battle going on between "egotism" and "altruism". What about "individualism" vs "collectivity". "Ecology" vs "productivity", "conflict" vs "symbiosis" and so on... Only history will show us which alternatives turn out to be advantageous. Only in retrospect, we (or a species that took over) will be able to answer those questions. No matter what happens, the label "evolution" will still stick on it. You can't neglect it or escape from it. JoH

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:31:59 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >But the all-important question, Jo, the one on everybody's lips, is "will >GP3 run okay on my system?" > >Forget this evolution rubbish and Darwin (horrible bloody place, >anyway...all heat, humidity and friggin' crocodiles) and concentrate on the >matter at hand, please. Bruce, if it gets too intellectually challenging, you don't HAVE to read on. An overheating brain isn't good for your driving :-) Darwin was a biologist, BTW ;-) And BTW, it is not easy to win from John Wallace. I thought this was an excellent occasion, now that he was stupid enough to leave his normal ecosystem (oops, doing it again :-) ) JoH

But the all-important question, Jo, the one on everybody's lips, is "will GP3 run okay on my system?" Forget this evolution rubbish and Darwin (horrible bloody place, anyway...all heat, humidity and friggin' crocodiles) and concentrate on the matter at hand, please. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:57:21 +0100, John Wallace > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:34:25 +0200, Jo Helsen > ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>We shouldn't take "survival of the fittest" too literally. It just means that > >>best adaption to existing circumstances gives an advantage (which is limited in > >>space and time). It's not some law of nature which can be obeyed or neglected, > >>though. Rather a way of describing the trend that you can recognise through > >>evolution. > > > >My point exactly, although I would argue that to some extent at least > >man has chosen to neglect. > > >In a herd of gazelle typically the weaker or crippled ones will be > >less able to escape from lion attacks and will therefore be "pruned". > >This, by Darwinism, means gazelles get stronger and better adapted. > > > >Humans, on the other hand, shepherd anyone weaker either mentally or > >physically, thus denying the level of improvement afforded to > >gazelles. > > I still think you (and most people, btw) are looking at this from a > much too limited perspective. > > As I said, "evolution" and therefore also "survival of the fittest" is > not somekind of "process" at work. Rather it is a label that we assign > to the course of things. Reality is not aware of any general rule that > has to be obeyed or something. There is nothing to neglect or to > comply to. > > That's why getting rid of the weak and helpless wouldn't guarantee us > a faster evolution of mankind or a superior race. It is a > simplification. Hitler was wrong on that one, too (the poor dumbass > :-) ) > > The simple, straightforward, interpretation of the "survival of the > fittest"-principle in the world of animals is just one possible > manifestation of what we call "evolution". It also is the incarnation > that is the easiest to recognise, and therefore it is all too often > simply used as a synonym. > > But a more complex environment/interactions might generate completely > different mechanisms in which these simple rules do NOT show the way > to go. Just consider the recent shift in importance from "physical > strength" to "brainpower". There might be a similar battle going on > between "egotism" and "altruism". What about "individualism" vs > "collectivity". "Ecology" vs "productivity", "conflict" vs "symbiosis" > and so on... Only history will show us which alternatives turn out to > be advantageous. Only in retrospect, we (or a species that took over) > will be able to answer those questions. No matter what happens, the > label "evolution" will still stick on it. You can't neglect it or > escape from it. > > JoH >

Who's kidding who? :-) On the other hand, I think GP3 will need a serious system. Considering how the latest system requirements suddenly talk about a PIII with unspecified clockspeed... Well, you can't stop the Evolution of CPUs. It's eating or being eaten.. JoH On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:44:03 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (42 lines)

>Isn't that just so amazing....that Darwin was into biology, I mean? I >thought he was but a simple explorer who, whilst sailing the world with his >beagle (he obviously liked dogs), ran into a giant turtle and foundered with >the loss of all hands in the Galloping Islands. > >I wonder then Jo, when he actually visited Darwin? Was it before or after >Cyclone Tracy? > >In the meantime......have you considered the burning question at hand? > >-- >Regards, >Bruce Kennewell, >Canberra, Australia. >--------------------------- > >Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:31:59 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >But the all-important question, Jo, the one on everybody's lips, is >"will >> >GP3 run okay on my system?" >> > >> >Forget this evolution rubbish and Darwin (horrible bloody place, >> >anyway...all heat, humidity and friggin' crocodiles) and concentrate on >the >> >matter at hand, please. >> >> Bruce, if it gets too intellectually challenging, you don't HAVE to >> read on. An overheating brain isn't good for your driving :-) >> >> Darwin was a biologist, BTW ;-) >> >> And BTW, it is not easy to win from John Wallace. I thought this was >> an excellent occasion, now that he was stupid enough to leave his >> normal ecosystem (oops, doing it again :-) ) >> >> JoH > >

Isn't that just so amazing....that Darwin was into biology, I mean? I thought he was but a simple explorer who, whilst sailing the world with his beagle (he obviously liked dogs), ran into a giant turtle and foundered with the loss of all hands in the Galloping Islands. I wonder then Jo, when he actually visited Darwin? Was it before or after Cyclone Tracy? In the meantime......have you considered the burning question at hand? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:31:59 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >But the all-important question, Jo, the one on everybody's lips, is "will > >GP3 run okay on my system?" > > > >Forget this evolution rubbish and Darwin (horrible bloody place, > >anyway...all heat, humidity and friggin' crocodiles) and concentrate on the > >matter at hand, please. > > Bruce, if it gets too intellectually challenging, you don't HAVE to > read on. An overheating brain isn't good for your driving :-) > > Darwin was a biologist, BTW ;-) > > And BTW, it is not easy to win from John Wallace. I thought this was > an excellent occasion, now that he was stupid enough to leave his > normal ecosystem (oops, doing it again :-) ) > > JoH

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:39:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) wrote: >As I said, "evolution" and therefore also "survival of the fittest" is >not somekind of "process" at work. Rather it is a label that we assign >to the course of things. Reality is not aware of any general rule that >has to be obeyed or something. There is nothing to neglect or to >comply to. Whether we assign it a label or not, Darwinism is a process that is followed, uniwttingly, by every animal on the planet. Mankind has changed this far more than any other species. >That's why getting rid of the weak and helpless wouldn't guarantee us >a faster evolution of mankind or a superior race. It is a >simplification. Hitler was wrong on that one, too (the poor dumbass >:-) ) Hitler wasn't afforded the opportunity to succeed or fail, since such changes take many tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to show an effect and he was fortunately afforded far fewer. But it would undeniably make a difference, otherwise how do you think mankind got to the situation of today?

Quoted text (8 lines)

>But a more complex environment/interactions might generate completely >different mechanisms in which these simple rules do NOT show the way >to go. Just consider the recent shift in importance from "physical >strength" to "brainpower". There might be a similar battle going on >between "egotism" and "altruism". What about "individualism" vs >"collectivity". "Ecology" vs "productivity", "conflict" vs "symbiosis" >and so on... Only history will show us which alternatives turn out to >be advantageous.

Indeed, and ALL of those are a part of Darwinism. You choose to intepret "weaker" as physically weaker, and in the case of a gazelle that is true, but Darwinism states simply that it is less well adapted to the prevailing conditions that it's peers, and that is true of brainpower, altrusim, individualism and so on. It's survival of the gene, not the individual, and humankind follows that less well than at any time in their history. John

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:01:47 -0400, "daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote: >There's a group of Americans on an island in the middle of nowhere eating >insects (and rats) in hopes of winning 1,000,000$ USD. I don't know if that says more about Americans or French - the French guy does it because he enjoys it, the Americans forced to in pursuit of money. John

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:02:57 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>A person doesn't score a single point with me due to their affiliation with >any group, especially those mentioned above. I have no respect at all for >people who are weak and feel the need to align themselves with a group to >feel stronger, and who blindly follow the teachings and traditions of that >group. > >The killing of something for pleasure is wrong EVERYWHERE on this earth. >When it comes to this, man made boundaries drawn on a map mean nothing to >me.

Laudable first paragraph, but the connection with the second is somewhat tenuous at best. I very much doubt that the vast majority of people in countries where such food is popular killed the animals themselves, in fact I know they didn't. That makes them equally as innocent as all those in the US eating at McDonalds every day (although probably less meat involved in McDonalds...). I've eaten bat, monkey, rat, snake and a host of other delightful things in some countries, and you can be damn sure it wasn't for pleasure. It was because that's what is abundant and available to eat at affordable prices. Of course elsewhere there are bizarre things available for pleasure (I recall a brand of coffee where the beans had been eaten and, er, "passed through" the digestive processes of a mountain cat becoming extremely expensive a few years ago) but these are an entirely different subject. If you can afford prime steak and choose to eat salad out of the love of animals that's fine and well, but it doesn't confer any right to get high and mighty with those who are denied the choice, nor to assume that they do so out of pleasure. John

Does the Darwinian Theory of Relatives apply to CPU's, Jo? :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Who's kidding who? :-) > > On the other hand, I think GP3 will need a serious system. Considering > how the latest system requirements suddenly talk about a PIII with > unspecified clockspeed... > > Well, you can't stop the Evolution of CPUs. It's eating or being > eaten.. > > JoH > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:44:03 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Isn't that just so amazing....that Darwin was into biology, I mean? I > >thought he was but a simple explorer who, whilst sailing the world with his > >beagle (he obviously liked dogs), ran into a giant turtle and foundered with > >the loss of all hands in the Galloping Islands. > > > >I wonder then Jo, when he actually visited Darwin? Was it before or after > >Cyclone Tracy? > > > >In the meantime......have you considered the burning question at hand? > > > >-- > >Regards, > >Bruce Kennewell, > >Canberra, Australia. > >--------------------------- > > > >Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:31:59 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > >> <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> >But the all-important question, Jo, the one on everybody's lips, is > >"will > >> >GP3 run okay on my system?" > >> > > >> >Forget this evolution rubbish and Darwin (horrible bloody place, > >> >anyway...all heat, humidity and friggin' crocodiles) and concentrate on > >the > >> >matter at hand, please. > >> > >> Bruce, if it gets too intellectually challenging, you don't HAVE to > >> read on. An overheating brain isn't good for your driving :-) > >> > >> Darwin was a biologist, BTW ;-) > >> > >> And BTW, it is not easy to win from John Wallace. I thought this was > >> an excellent occasion, now that he was stupid enough to leave his > >> normal ecosystem (oops, doing it again :-) ) > >> > >> JoH > > > > >

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:19:23 +0100, John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:39:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) >wrote: > >>As I said, "evolution" and therefore also "survival of the fittest" is >>not somekind of "process" at work. Rather it is a label that we assign >>to the course of things. Reality is not aware of any general rule that >>has to be obeyed or something. There is nothing to neglect or to >>comply to. > >Whether we assign it a label or not, Darwinism is a process that is >followed, uniwttingly, by every animal on the planet. Mankind has >changed this far more than any other species. > >>That's why getting rid of the weak and helpless wouldn't guarantee us >>a faster evolution of mankind or a superior race. It is a >>simplification. Hitler was wrong on that one, too (the poor dumbass >>:-) ) > >Hitler wasn't afforded the opportunity to succeed or fail, since such >changes take many tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to show an >effect and he was fortunately afforded far fewer. But it would >undeniably make a difference, otherwise how do you think mankind got >to the situation of today? > >>But a more complex environment/interactions might generate completely >>different mechanisms in which these simple rules do NOT show the way >>to go. Just consider the recent shift in importance from "physical >>strength" to "brainpower". There might be a similar battle going on >>between "egotism" and "altruism". What about "individualism" vs >>"collectivity". "Ecology" vs "productivity", "conflict" vs "symbiosis" >>and so on... Only history will show us which alternatives turn out to >>be advantageous. > >Indeed, and ALL of those are a part of Darwinism. You choose to >intepret "weaker" as physically weaker, and in the case of a gazelle >that is true, but Darwinism states simply that it is less well adapted >to the prevailing conditions that it's peers, and that is true of >brainpower, altrusim, individualism and so on. It's survival of the >gene, not the individual, and humankind follows that less well than at >any time in their history.

John, I think what I disagree with in your explanation is the use of the word "follows". Using "to follow" implies that the possibility to "escape from it" exists too. In your view, it would somehow be possible to "step out" of Evolution and choose another way. Sort of "outsmarting" the natural course of things. But that's what I meant by "There is nothing to neglect or to comply to." What we do as a species becomes by definition part of Evolution. If we decide to try to break with Evolutionary principles, or if our behaviour unconsciously seems to go that way, then it is merely an illusion. Evolutionary selection is always going on, and if the trend of human so called "a-typical" behaviour continous, then that simply means that Evolution makes us do it. Because there is no "correct" direction or "wrong" direction. There's just THE direction which becomes Evolution along the way. I hope I make sense since it is not easy in a foreign language :-) JoH