A Parents Primer To Computer Slang

[Bry Man]

I just happened to stumble across this and found it to be rather humorous. Microsoft telling people how to speak in "l33t" so that they know what their kids are saying.

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/children/kidtalk.mspx

[Ranger56]

7|-|47'$ $000000 |)|_||\/|8...1337 74|<$ \/\/4'/ 700 |_0|\|9 70 7'/p |=0|2 p30p|_3 70 |_|$3 !7 4$ 7|-|1|2 $74|\||)4|2|) |\/|7|-|0|) 0|= 7'/p!|\|9. P|_|_|$ !7'$ |-|4|2|) 70 |24|) 3\/3|\| !|= '/0|_| |-|4\/3 4 \/\/|-|!|_3.

:p

[Kurashu]

A friend showed this to me long ago.

Still rather amusing though.

[JamieR]

Ya, kinda interesting - I didn't think MS would be interested in publishing an article like that. I think the line

the first series is of particular concern, as their use could be an indicator that your teenager is involved in the theft of intellectual property, particularly licensed software.
is a call out for parents to lecture their children into not pirating software and to buy it all for them..like a "hidden line" :D

[Tristan Gray]

I have pirated software in my past but realistically there is no line. We create one because it is so easy to steal software but it IS theft. Period. I'm all for open source and what not but when someone charges a fee for their software it is totally within their right to do so. Now if you are going to complain about over-inflated prices, save it. The reality is that everything we buy is priced not by supply versus demand but by a cost benefit analysis of a curve of sales. How high can we put the cost before the cost per customer and the number of customers that buy our product balances? Then we'll place the price just below that point so that we can continue to expand our customer base and then every now and again we'll do the same calculation and revise as per the results.

If you steal your software but not your groceries it is because you are spineless or stupid. Because logically there is not enough of a difference to justify the theft, which leaves you either unable to reason or just too afraid to steal from someone face-to-face.

[Basscyst]

I have pirated software in my past but realistically there is no line. We create one because it is so easy to steal software but it IS theft. Period. I'm all for open source and what not but when someone charges a fee for their software it is totally within their right to do so. Now if you are going to complain about over-inflated prices, save it. The reality is that everything we buy is priced not by supply versus demand but by a cost benefit analysis of a curve of sales. How high can we put the cost before the cost per customer and the number of customers that buy our product balances? Then we'll place the price just below that point so that we can continue to expand our customer base and then every now and again we'll do the same calculation and revise as per the results.

If you steal your software but not your groceries it is because you are spineless or stupid. Because logically there is not enough of a difference to justify the theft, which leaves you either unable to reason or just too afraid to steal from someone face-to-face.


Ooh! A can of worms. . .

I have to disagree, there is a very large difference between stealing your groceries and software piracy. An apple is a tangible object, in order to get an apple somone had to grow it, harvest it and send it out to market, once that apple is purchased and eaten another apple must be grown in it's place using the same techniques. Software is different, once the "apple" is grown it can be replicated from the grown apple with much less effort than the original apple entailed.

So comes the hidden line of true theft in pirating software. It really comes down to the persons intentions and ability to purchase said software. If the person could not afford it, and therefore would never buy it, it is of no loss to the software manufacturer if the EU accquires it prior to their abilities to purchase. So long as once able, it is purchased. Now those pirates who use illegitimate software for their own financial gain by selling said copies directly, are in my opinion, truly theives.

In conclusion, most are neither spineless or stupid, but usually financially inept. ;)

Basscyst

[rmedek]

Can of worms indeed...

I wonder, if everyone who owned Photoshop had actually paid for it, would the price drop down to something remotely affordable for the average user?

[chilipie]

I doubt it; surely it would just encourage Adobe to keep the price the same, if there were that many people willing to pay for it?

All the people I know that pirate software do so for themselves - none of them sell it on to a third party. I'm not condoning their actions, but as they wouldn't be able to afford it anyway...

[theexo51]

when it comes to pirating music and videos etc, i have to admit that i have done this, but watching a sketchy movie on my monitor doesnt come close to watching a dvd quality film in surround sound on my big tv. so generally once i preview the movie, if i like it i buy it too. i have purchased about 50 movies this way.
nothings worse than buying a new release and watching it then going, jeez thats rubbish.
many purchases would not have been made without watching first, films that i didnt think i would like. so it kinda balances out in the end. not condoning this but if the option is there i like to take advantage.

[Tristan Gray]

100% cop out. Where is the moral difference there? Are you saying you believe in NO intellectual property at all? That is the logical conclusion to your arguments. The only technological theft that I consider a gray area is that of signal-stealing since it is being broadcast through your home in complete disregards for your wishes. If someone is spamming a signal through your house without permission then if you can tap into it and use that signal that is questionable.

The woman who steals from the grocery store doesn't open up a fruit stand outside trying to undercut the store she just ripped off... That doesn't make it better in any way at all. And so just not selling whatever you steal hardly strips it of its dishonest nature. And even giving it away for free is terrible. It's easy for you who has contributed nothing to it to redistribute as you wish but for those who worked hard they may want something out of it and that is fully within their right to request.

Software is different, once the "apple" is grown it can be replicated from the grown apple with much less effort than the original apple entailed

This is absolutely mind-boggling. This denies any merit whatsoever to the original creation of the apple without which the chain would be broken and there would be nothing. And this is simply not true, those few people out there who actually work for Paradox etc and crack the programs, a flimsy argument of their entitlement to the software could be made, but the millions of peons who simply ride the coat tails of others are morally deplorable.

Essentially what you are saying that if you steal from someone who never notices it is not wrong. And you could argue that software is an infinite quantity but then my argument is that human time is not. What you are paying for is the effort that went into creating this product. The fact that it can be replicated infinitely simply demonstrates what a great idea it was.

Why don't just steal everyone's source code and images? Just download an entire webpage and then edit it to reflect your name and then upload it? That isn't stealing? I'd love to see a lot of the people around here agree with that and yet no doubt they agree that stealing mp3s and software is fine. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day people just can't face up to the fact that what they are doing is wrong. It is not complicated, or hard to comprehend, it is clearly wrong. We just make it complicated so that we don't have to answer. Anyway, I don't have time to make a well-structured case for my point of view but I think that it is a clear-cut issue. Stealing is stealing is stealing. There may situations where it is the only recourse open to you but it is still wrong but then circumstance has placed you in an unfortunate situation and you must suffer the consequences of stealing whatever they may be if you choose to go that route. And let's face facts here, this isn't stealing a loaf of bread to feed our families.

[bazz]

yeh Tristan, I agree with the thrust of your comments though I do consider that there aren't too many around here who partake of such practices. However, if the cap fits, it should be worn.

Really imho, we're talking 'respect for other's property' here but it seems to be an issue (problem) that is starting to pervade in many areas of society.

As I see it, the fundamental issue is that of jealousy. Think about it. (OK a bit of generalisation coming here). If persons, A, want something these days, they expect either, to have it without question or, worse, they (persons A), demand that those who do have it (persons B), become deprived simply because they (persons A), do not have it. (think the 4X4 in London argument for example. The green argument there is, in fact, one of jealousy and not environmental as was proven on television last night.)

It's simple; people resent the fact that others have things which they do not have. Perhaps its a problem that is developing as a result of our collective gullibility for branding and marketing where we seem obsessed with having the latest brand item and that if we don't have it, we, somehow, are missing out. What balderdash. There is no connection between branding and quality. (I digress).

So, as far as software goes, it is the authors property until 1, they decide to supply it to someone else and 2, provided they recieve whatever renumeration they have asked for. If those two conditions are not met then the property remains that of the owner, even if its in the hands of the other party.

It is a condition of provision (a condition of sale) - I give it to you if you give 'that' to me. Any other method of acquisition is theft and should be treated by all, as such.

And, as for the argument that apples have to be regrown each time, whereas software doesn't, well that's wrong too. The software does have to be re-grown. The fact that the re growing process is different from that first one, is irrelevant. It is still re-grown. Think cloning and genetic modification, :) not that I agree with artificial food (fancily branded and all that), you understand. :)

And IMHO, the fact that this issue (ownership and, what we own - or don't own), pervades different parts of society is because it is a matter of principle. Property remains the owners property until the owner sells or gives it away.

Not intended to be patronising in any way; it really 'gets my goat' (annoys me), sometimes, that people expect so much. And we should remember too, that even the person who feels most powerless, is actually pivotal to the world's society. Why?

Because he pays the guy who develops something - think of the inventors/developers of software, vaccuum cleaners, music, whatever - the must-haves of today.

He then makes a shed load of money, which the little guy have caused. He, the wealthy guy, then spends it one of the latest must-haves, which is mega expensive (think plasma Tv's a few years ago). When he dumps that for the next big, mega-expensive, thing, he is helping bring to the masses, something which otherwise wouldn't arrive. When we have received it, it is often a fraction the cost (new) of what he (the wealthy guy), paid for his.
And when we have finished with it, it goes to the next level of customer.
But it wouldn't all happen, if the (so-called) little guy wasn't making it happen for the (so-called), movers and shakers. So remind me again, who is the big fish in this earthly sea? Who is it that makes the world go around?

Ahh I see, it's the guy who pays for his belongings that makes the world go around. The guy who steals his trappings is depriving the world, not just the original owner. That's why I have contempt for copyright enfringment and thieves not so much for the seemingly smaller issue of pinching someone's property but because of the long term ramifications of that action.

(soap box put away).

Ahh that feels better. mmm.
Bazz

[Tristan Gray]

Indeed, people are confused as to what their rights now entail. They believe that equality is to be guaranteed and sought-after in all areas of society and yet this is ridiculous. You can never eliminate classicism because it is human nature to group and separate things. That is the way the mind works on a very fundamental level. It is good that we by and large agree that all human beings should be treated witha minimum amount of respect and dignity but at some point you have to realize that equality is a fiction. Albeit a beautiful fiction that is perhaps the most noble product of our society, but a fiction none the less. But this obviously is heading in a different direction. But all of these things are related, and I find studying the impact of technology on psychology to be incredibly interesting.

For quite some time now we have accepted that language impacts psychology drastically, and now we must concede that technology is having a very profound effect on our languages. Even since the advent of film, who hasn't imagined that there was some outside force watching them despite their solitude? Almost as if a camera were rolling somewhere. The recent proposal of Google making North America into more or less one giant Wi-Fi hotspot is thrilling to me and yet decidely uncomfortable. No doubt it will bring people closer together than ever before. But at the same time I don't know too many friendships that have become meaningfully 'closer' via msn or other electronic communication means. But perhaps I am just waving a faded flag of an ideal that never truly existed outside of my fictitious image of the past.