I am a pirate.
-
I have planned to take Visual Studio 2010 Certification exams this year and my main sources are these three books: - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-511): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Windows Applications Development - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-515): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Web Applications Development - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-516): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Accessing Data with ADO.NET The problem is that I have downloaded these books illegally for free and worse than that I don’t feel guilty at all.:confused: How about you? Have you ever downloaded programming books illegally? Did you feel guilty after that? :confused:
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
I don't know why you were downvoted, but I gave you a 5 to compensate a bit. You ask a legitimate question, and one that should concern this community. I've used pirated software - not often, but a few times. These were items that didn't offer a free trial. If I liked them, I re-downloaded them and paid for them. If I didn't, I uninstalled them after a brief trial. Much like the process of hiring a new employee, adopting a new bit of software should include an interview period during which both parties have the opportunity to determine if the candidate is a good fit for the needs of the organization. I feel no guilt over that sort of act. I've also downloaded pirated documents, and I've followed the same rule. If they were unusable, I deleted them. If they were useful, I paid for them. Sometimes I've purchased books that looked good in the ads, but were garbage when I received them and could view the full contents. A few of those I kept, just because I couldn't be bothered with returning them, but most I returned for a refund. What you've done is wrong. Period. Whether you ascribe to the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or to simple economic sense, stealing another person's work is wrong. There is no moral principle which supports theft as a means of existence, unless you consider a welfare state to be a desirable thing. That, in itself, is so self defeating and counter-survival that it's not worth discussing. You should feel guilty. You've done a bad thing, though quite possibly for good reasons. Morality is a fuzzy subject, not something that lawyers and governments are well-equipped to deal with. But there is no doubt that your action is wrong. You probably have good reasons for acting as you did, but it's still wrong. You should feel terrible about stealing the work of others. By the way, do you have a link to those downloads? I'd like to find out if they're worth paying for. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
-
I have planned to take Visual Studio 2010 Certification exams this year and my main sources are these three books: - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-511): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Windows Applications Development - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-515): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Web Applications Development - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-516): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Accessing Data with ADO.NET The problem is that I have downloaded these books illegally for free and worse than that I don’t feel guilty at all.:confused: How about you? Have you ever downloaded programming books illegally? Did you feel guilty after that? :confused:
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
Attempting to load signature... A NullSignatureException was unhandled. Message: "No signature exists"
-
Ok we only invaded with planes. But still US military entered Libya and bombed (attacked). At one time that would have been considered war. I also have heard that there are now significant troop on the ground in Iraq, but they may just be the same rumor. I am not the one that actually came up with this notion, someone else did, and I thought they had a good point from a logic pov: have nuclear weapons and the US will not attack you.
Several points: First: The most important thing you can know about a fact is who gave it to you. There are so many reasons for this that there just isn't room here. So whoever suggested that to you- you should reconsider some of the other things they've given you. Second: Just because something seems logical doesn't make it true. The best use of logic includes truthing it against the real world. Otherwise its just an intellectual exercise and no more. Okay someone suggests that it makes sense that having an A-Bomb will make the US not go after you. Sounds good on paper. But the US isn't in the habit of running around and invading places. If they wanted to get rid of someone who has no nukes they would have gone in big against Castro in Cuba (and they only went in small) and they'd settle Hugo Chavez' hash since he doesn't exactly fit their ideal of a leader of Venezuela. And if the first were true it wouldn't mean that the converse is also true. If the US steers clear of countries that have nuclear programs then it doesn't necessarily mean that they go headlong at countries that have given up nuclear programs or countries that don't have nuclear programs. I gave you a list of countries that have had nuclear programs and no longer have such. And very few of them have suffered an invasion. So whatever you were told as an idea, you might as well take it out in the light and decide whether you want to keep it or not. Third: Invasion is not the same as attacked. If it were then the US has invaded lots of countries and lots of other countries have invaded the US. Every time the US gets attacked at an embassy it would be 'an invasion'. But the two are very different things. The wikipedia article on invasion should give you a good read on what is what. Fourth: War is not the same as invasion or attacked. The precise use of these terms means a very specific thing to everyone involved- and using them interchangeably means that you won't get your point across; valid or not. No one will listen. The best you will get is a shouting match or silence as everyone ignores you. Fifth: there are no significant US troops on the ground in Libya. You must mean Libya even though you say "Iraq" because of everything else you've said. In Iraq I believe there are still around 13,000. The US is leaving Iraq so this is a lot less than there was. This depends on what you mean by significant. Are there any US troops on the ground in Libya? Probably special forces and the like. All I
-
So you want authors to be clever and stupid at the same time. My good friend Dan Vaughan has just finished writing a book on programming Windows Phone 7. It took him hundreds of hours to write and he won't make much money out of it. Yet you would have it that he paid for the publishing costs himself. Your model would mean that no factual books would get published. Congratulations on singlehandedly taking us back to the middle ages.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
I have planned to take Visual Studio 2010 Certification exams this year and my main sources are these three books: - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-511): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Windows Applications Development - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-515): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Web Applications Development - MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-516): Microsoft .NET Framework 4—Accessing Data with ADO.NET The problem is that I have downloaded these books illegally for free and worse than that I don’t feel guilty at all.:confused: How about you? Have you ever downloaded programming books illegally? Did you feel guilty after that? :confused:
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
-
That's a very odd line of reasoning. Do you think a textbook requires no design? No effort to write, let alone the years of study and practice required to become proficient enough to write it? There is one kind of IP I willingly steal - government documents. As a taxpayer, I paid for their development, and unless they are classified, they're public domain by law. For instance, the amount of knowledge and research contained in DOD and MIL standards and specifications could not be surpassed by any small to medium size company, and I can see no justification for any private venture to spend a dime duplicating such documents. There's a treasure trove of free information there for the taking, and it's not illegal. Various other government departments publish standards, too. When my boss wanted to have a standard for constructing high voltage transmission lines, I found a RUS standard that not only included specifications for such things as height above water and pole strength, but also included a step-by-step procedure - with equations for calculating load resistance - for designing the structures to support the line. Another good source is local government publications. When I needed a standard for designing sewer pipe installations, I found that the Maricopa Association of Governments had already published - free for the taking - a set of specifications for sewer installation, along with a book of detailed design drawings for anyone to use! We adopted them immediately, as have many hundreds of utilities in the US, simply because they are so well done, and represent thousands of engineering hours of work that we can't afford to reproduce. I've spent 40 years becoming an expert at what I do. I've poured my heart and soul into becoming the best engineer that I can be, and from what I've been told, I'm pretty damned good at it. Maybe someday I'll write a textbook, or possibly just a white paper or two. But if you think you're entitled to the fruits of my intellectual labors over a lifetime for free, I'm inclined to elect to go to my grave with my knowledge kept to myself. You and your offspring can damned well spend your lives sitting around your rent-controlled, homeowner-association-monitored caves wondering if rocks are edible, and what color this wheel thingy ought to be. I'm not singling you out, kid - you just struck a nerve. There's a whole generation out there that has never done a day's honest work, and thinks that anything they want should be free, that the efforts of others are for their free use
Roger Wright wrote:
That's a very odd line of reasoning. Do you think a textbook requires no design? No effort to write, let alone the years of study and practice required to become proficient enough to write it?
Not at all it requires the same if not more effort, but i think in the case of educational material on balance the needs of the masses to be educated out ways the need of the individual to make lots of profit.... people put a lot of time and effort into writting articles here for the respect of peers and enjoyment of teaching others :-\ so the system works i would say
-
Several points: First: The most important thing you can know about a fact is who gave it to you. There are so many reasons for this that there just isn't room here. So whoever suggested that to you- you should reconsider some of the other things they've given you. Second: Just because something seems logical doesn't make it true. The best use of logic includes truthing it against the real world. Otherwise its just an intellectual exercise and no more. Okay someone suggests that it makes sense that having an A-Bomb will make the US not go after you. Sounds good on paper. But the US isn't in the habit of running around and invading places. If they wanted to get rid of someone who has no nukes they would have gone in big against Castro in Cuba (and they only went in small) and they'd settle Hugo Chavez' hash since he doesn't exactly fit their ideal of a leader of Venezuela. And if the first were true it wouldn't mean that the converse is also true. If the US steers clear of countries that have nuclear programs then it doesn't necessarily mean that they go headlong at countries that have given up nuclear programs or countries that don't have nuclear programs. I gave you a list of countries that have had nuclear programs and no longer have such. And very few of them have suffered an invasion. So whatever you were told as an idea, you might as well take it out in the light and decide whether you want to keep it or not. Third: Invasion is not the same as attacked. If it were then the US has invaded lots of countries and lots of other countries have invaded the US. Every time the US gets attacked at an embassy it would be 'an invasion'. But the two are very different things. The wikipedia article on invasion should give you a good read on what is what. Fourth: War is not the same as invasion or attacked. The precise use of these terms means a very specific thing to everyone involved- and using them interchangeably means that you won't get your point across; valid or not. No one will listen. The best you will get is a shouting match or silence as everyone ignores you. Fifth: there are no significant US troops on the ground in Libya. You must mean Libya even though you say "Iraq" because of everything else you've said. In Iraq I believe there are still around 13,000. The US is leaving Iraq so this is a lot less than there was. This depends on what you mean by significant. Are there any US troops on the ground in Libya? Probably special forces and the like. All I
What constitutes war (true for invasion) is arbitrary, depending on how someone wants to define it. It is just a word. Now there is a declaration of war, but the US seems to not longer declare war. There is nothing that says that everyone agrees that war is only a war that is declared. The US has recently been hiding behind that fact that Congress has not declared war. So there is no precision words. The US government did not create the word “War”, it has just put its own definition of war. Interesting that we have a war against drugs and terror, but there can only be a war if congress officially declares war. It has not, so the US government has two meanings of war already. Somebody else has another definition. What is mortal combat instigated by a government that is not war. Hey, we also have gang war, but that is not war by definition, but we use the term. Whether there are troops on the ground in Libya, there have been reports (http://www.infowars.com/us-deploys-12000-troops-in-libya/). People are seldom logical, and that is defiantly the truth in the US where the American voters seem to decide mostly on emotion and not analysis; can’t expect people in other countries to be equally logical. The extreme in the Middle East are no more logical than the tea party in the US. So no mater how illogical some statement may be (just think about the logic that God exists, people still believe in god even though there is no way to prove that god exists). I was not saying that the statement was true or false, and there is a certain logic that can convince people it is true. That is all that counts. Yes the logic can be shot full of holes, but most arguments can be shot full of holes, maybe only will bullshit statements, but if the statements seem to be true that is all that matters. As far as the US invading with 100,000 that is pretty close to the maximum that could be deployed prior to the gulf war. I doubt that many were deployed in Granada, Somalia, or Panama. The US Army and Marines were pretty stressed getting enough troops on the ground in Iraq, and that initially was only around 130,000 of occupation if I remember correctly.
-
What constitutes war (true for invasion) is arbitrary, depending on how someone wants to define it. It is just a word. Now there is a declaration of war, but the US seems to not longer declare war. There is nothing that says that everyone agrees that war is only a war that is declared. The US has recently been hiding behind that fact that Congress has not declared war. So there is no precision words. The US government did not create the word “War”, it has just put its own definition of war. Interesting that we have a war against drugs and terror, but there can only be a war if congress officially declares war. It has not, so the US government has two meanings of war already. Somebody else has another definition. What is mortal combat instigated by a government that is not war. Hey, we also have gang war, but that is not war by definition, but we use the term. Whether there are troops on the ground in Libya, there have been reports (http://www.infowars.com/us-deploys-12000-troops-in-libya/). People are seldom logical, and that is defiantly the truth in the US where the American voters seem to decide mostly on emotion and not analysis; can’t expect people in other countries to be equally logical. The extreme in the Middle East are no more logical than the tea party in the US. So no mater how illogical some statement may be (just think about the logic that God exists, people still believe in god even though there is no way to prove that god exists). I was not saying that the statement was true or false, and there is a certain logic that can convince people it is true. That is all that counts. Yes the logic can be shot full of holes, but most arguments can be shot full of holes, maybe only will bullshit statements, but if the statements seem to be true that is all that matters. As far as the US invading with 100,000 that is pretty close to the maximum that could be deployed prior to the gulf war. I doubt that many were deployed in Granada, Somalia, or Panama. The US Army and Marines were pretty stressed getting enough troops on the ground in Iraq, and that initially was only around 130,000 of occupation if I remember correctly.
So you, like humpty dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, can decide that a word means whatever you want it to mean. You want to live that way, you go right ahead. It leads to fuzzy thinking but that's your prerogative. The term war used in those contexts is used incorrectly on purpose for rhetorical reasons. Nothing more. Except for a gang war, which is a war. There is nothing recent about the US not declaring war. That's a constitutional issue that neither congress nor the president wants to duke it out over. Note that the party hasn't been relevant for the president to insist that the War Powers Resolution Act is unconstitutional. If you want to read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution[^] What makes you think the Tea Party people aren't logical? They want lower taxes and a reduction in government spending. What part of that is illogical? That's like saying an environmentalist is illogical for wanting a cleaner environment. The Grenada invasion took 7600 troops. They didn't bring more because they were facing only about 2100 troops, who lacked any kind of air support. Libya has 10s of thousands of people who might participate in a fight. And there's still not a very good reason for Pres. Obama to commit troops. In Libya they lost some 30,000 people in their recent civil war- which implies that the US would be crazy to land 12,000 troops there and expect to do anything with them. If you check the CIA world Fact book you will find that they had in 2008 roughly 1.6 million males available for military service. The total population was over 6 million while Grenada has about 100,000 total people many of which were eager to see the US troops arrive. I've read your article on the 12000 troops. The source is questionable. Maybe they are there, maybe they aren't. If you take the lead line in that article you find that it is repeated all over the internet but not by any real sources of news. It is in fact xeroxed all over the internet. Without more suitable confirmation it has the validity of this news story: https://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/after-libya-usa-is-arming-al-qaeda-smuggling-wea
-
The first question on each of those tests is: Did you steal study materials? The question is worth 75 pts. Good luck.
So I have already passed the exam. ;P
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
-
I don't know why you were downvoted, but I gave you a 5 to compensate a bit. You ask a legitimate question, and one that should concern this community. I've used pirated software - not often, but a few times. These were items that didn't offer a free trial. If I liked them, I re-downloaded them and paid for them. If I didn't, I uninstalled them after a brief trial. Much like the process of hiring a new employee, adopting a new bit of software should include an interview period during which both parties have the opportunity to determine if the candidate is a good fit for the needs of the organization. I feel no guilt over that sort of act. I've also downloaded pirated documents, and I've followed the same rule. If they were unusable, I deleted them. If they were useful, I paid for them. Sometimes I've purchased books that looked good in the ads, but were garbage when I received them and could view the full contents. A few of those I kept, just because I couldn't be bothered with returning them, but most I returned for a refund. What you've done is wrong. Period. Whether you ascribe to the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or to simple economic sense, stealing another person's work is wrong. There is no moral principle which supports theft as a means of existence, unless you consider a welfare state to be a desirable thing. That, in itself, is so self defeating and counter-survival that it's not worth discussing. You should feel guilty. You've done a bad thing, though quite possibly for good reasons. Morality is a fuzzy subject, not something that lawyers and governments are well-equipped to deal with. But there is no doubt that your action is wrong. You probably have good reasons for acting as you did, but it's still wrong. You should feel terrible about stealing the work of others. By the way, do you have a link to those downloads? I'd like to find out if they're worth paying for. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
Which one do you want? Don't you think it’s illegal to put those links in here? By the way these are just for evaluation. Please buy them after reading.
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
-
I don't know why you were downvoted, but I gave you a 5 to compensate a bit. You ask a legitimate question, and one that should concern this community. I've used pirated software - not often, but a few times. These were items that didn't offer a free trial. If I liked them, I re-downloaded them and paid for them. If I didn't, I uninstalled them after a brief trial. Much like the process of hiring a new employee, adopting a new bit of software should include an interview period during which both parties have the opportunity to determine if the candidate is a good fit for the needs of the organization. I feel no guilt over that sort of act. I've also downloaded pirated documents, and I've followed the same rule. If they were unusable, I deleted them. If they were useful, I paid for them. Sometimes I've purchased books that looked good in the ads, but were garbage when I received them and could view the full contents. A few of those I kept, just because I couldn't be bothered with returning them, but most I returned for a refund. What you've done is wrong. Period. Whether you ascribe to the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or to simple economic sense, stealing another person's work is wrong. There is no moral principle which supports theft as a means of existence, unless you consider a welfare state to be a desirable thing. That, in itself, is so self defeating and counter-survival that it's not worth discussing. You should feel guilty. You've done a bad thing, though quite possibly for good reasons. Morality is a fuzzy subject, not something that lawyers and governments are well-equipped to deal with. But there is no doubt that your action is wrong. You probably have good reasons for acting as you did, but it's still wrong. You should feel terrible about stealing the work of others. By the way, do you have a link to those downloads? I'd like to find out if they're worth paying for. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
I sent 3 books to your mail.
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
-
I sent 3 books to your mail.
William Shakespeare Three sentences for getting SUCCESS: a) Know more than other. b) Work more than other. c) Expect less than other.
Thanks, Mehdi, but that was a joke. :-D I will take a look, though. I'm starting a new web project, and I'm in the market for an updated text or two. I'd forgotten how hard it is to work on a side project while working full time and going to school, so it may take me a while.
Will Rogers never met me.