Pornography: The secret history of civilization
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco
From: whisky-dave on 4 May 2010 08:45 "R Davis" <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote in message news:lsfmt5l54jijq3sbvk7su0kqm5o3vvvuhs(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:04:13 +0100, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> >>They have a certain amount of power but perhaps not as much as you think. >>How did they make you buy a computer with windows installed. >>There's Apple.com they don;t come with windows installed. >> >>Microsoft is also the most pirated software, if they were as powerful >>as you suggest then all those users illegally using their products >>could be arrest and perhaps even shot if they are as powerful as you >>think. >> > > Because Bill still has his own theft hanging over his head. He stole > software and made his fortunes on it. He also knows that whatever software > is distributed, by any means, becomes the most popular. And therefore > those > fools that are willing to hand over their money for it will make the "said > owner" of that software the most money. yes, so what's wrong with that ? > I've run across lots of really good shareware in the past. I didn't see it > being pirated back then. I do. >I also don't see the authors of those programs > anymore, nor their programs. A shame. But do you know the reasons for that ? Most shareware writers don;t last more than a couple of years and they move on or get employed, a lot of them are kids/students. Teh chance of seeing their products for 10-20 years is minimal. > One astronomy logging program in > particular was phenomenal, but it didn't get the exposure it needed > through > piracy. The author tried an anti-piracy measure that required updating the > registration at least once a year. Too much hassle, for pirate or buyer. So that's why it failed. ? Most fail because while they may be OK for a few users with few uses. > That software is gone now, long gone. As is the author. Their software > died, as did their dreams to make it rich. Perhaps their dreams were just to far from relaity. > If it had been pirated and had > less security measures it would have gotten a lot of exposure and support. Exposure perhaps but support might depend on how good it was or where it's going. > "If it ain't worth stealing, it sure as hell ain't worth buying." > > Those software authors that fight piracy are shooting themselves in their > own heads and feet. Some people get paid for firing guns at themselves. > You really don't know how this all works, do you. But more than you it seems, so can you explain why the most pirated software comes from one of the largest and most profitable software companies in the world and who's CEO is/was one of teh richest men in the world. ? Didn;t think so.
From: R Davis on 4 May 2010 09:21 On Tue, 4 May 2010 13:45:17 +0100, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >"R Davis" <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote in message >news:lsfmt5l54jijq3sbvk7su0kqm5o3vvvuhs(a)4ax.com... > >> You really don't know how this all works, do you. > >But more than you it seems, so can you explain why the most >pirated software comes from one of the largest and most profitable software >companies in the world and who's CEO is/was one of teh richest men in the >world. > ? > >Didn;t think so. > > Of course you don't think so. You missed reading and comprehending the first part that you replied to that gave you the very answer you seek. Try again..... but cut back on the whiskey a bit this time if you want to comprehend it. (though, quite frankly, the truth you seek is less important than enjoying a good whiskey) >> >> Because Bill still has his own theft hanging over his head. He stole >> software and made his fortunes on it. He also knows that whatever software >> is distributed, by any means, becomes the most popular. And therefore >> those fools that are willing to hand over their money for it will make the "said >> owner" of that software the most money.
From: Vance on 4 May 2010 11:33 On May 4, 6:21 am, R Davis <spaml...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2010 13:45:17 +0100, "whisky-dave" > > > > > > <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > >"R Davis" <spaml...(a)anon.com> wrote in message > >news:lsfmt5l54jijq3sbvk7su0kqm5o3vvvuhs(a)4ax.com... > > >> You really don't know how this all works, do you. > > >But more than you it seems, so can you explain why the most > >pirated software comes from one of the largest and most profitable software > >companies in the world and who's CEO is/was one of teh richest men in the > >world. > > ? > > >Didn;t think so. > > Of course you don't think so. You missed reading and comprehending the > first part that you replied to that gave you the very answer you seek. Try > again..... but cut back on the whiskey a bit this time if you want to > comprehend it. (though, quite frankly, the truth you seek is less important > than enjoying a good whiskey) > > > > > > >> Because Bill still has his own theft hanging over his head. He stole > >> software and made his fortunes on it. He also knows that whatever software > >> is distributed, by any means, becomes the most popular. And therefore > >> those fools that are willing to hand over their money for it will make the "said > >> owner" of that software the most money.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The nyms change, but the stupid remains the same. Vance
From: Ray Fischer on 4 May 2010 22:35 whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:30a1a84c-f90e-4546-9f2b-965e331c2e42(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >On 29 apr, 15:22, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2c600d03-5abd-4d5b-b3c1-3adf0ef560ee(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Hence the freedom to exchange information freely (when all bitstrings >> > would belong to the public domain) is more important than the right of >> > artists to make a living based on their creative skills. >> >> Can you prove this ? >> Can you prove all bitstrings belong to the public domain. > >}Can you prove that there exists a single bit-string that isn't part of >}the public domain? >}Surely if you could, you could just show me a bit-string that is not >}part of the public domain. > >Can yuo explain what a bit stream is ? >Are you really stupid enough to think that 1s and 0s flow down a wire ? He's stupid enough to insist that he gets to make up his own rules and force other people to accept them. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 4 May 2010 22:43
On 5 mei, 04:35, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >[.. babbling ..] You are a nazi cockroach that belongs in jail along with all the rest of the nazi scum that fail to respect human rights. |