Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

På Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:14:03 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:

> On 2008-09-09 07:37:16 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
> <slobodan.blazeski@gmail.com> said:
>
>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>
> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
> Shannon's information theory.
>
> IOW, it has nothing to do with "the nature of cyberspace" or the
> anthropomorphizing of information[1]; they're just selfish.
>
>
> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free>
>

And I am sick of people putting ulterior motives to what I am saying.
For the record I have never copied music off the web legally or illegally.
The closest I get is Internet radio.
Actually I am genuinely irritated by the way software of record industries
work.
It would be nice if you could stay with that without some sort of 'ad
hominem' attack.

--------------
John Thingstad

Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2008-09-09 07:37:16 -0400, Slobodan Blazeski
> <slobodan.blazeski@gmail.com> said:
>
> > So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>
> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
> Shannon's information theory.

I make some desktop software, how much should I invest in copy
protection. If it's popular thieves are going to crack it anyway, so
probably adding some online registration is enough to remind honest
people to pay me something for my effort. Thieves won't do it anyway.
If multibillion companies can't protect their software from piracy,
small fish like me can't do a shit about.Why?

Because people are selfish. Some people in some situation aren't but
that's just exception, else there would be no need for the law and
society to enforce the rules.
I wouldn't steal someones code or design but most people and
companies don't see a problem with that, that's why there are licenses
and laws. I bought my dvd rip software but for many emuled will do
just fine. For the music I use youtube and buy some pieces that I
especially like. And don't present yourself as a saint. Because
you're not. You're human. And there's one kind of people I hate more
than cheats , the hypocrites.

cheers
bobi

In comp.lang.lisp Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:

>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
> Shannon's information theory.

It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
are illegal to possess. Worse yet, ASH and LOGIOR it together, then it
makes an illegal number.

--
The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying

On Sep 10, 5:27*pm, Stanis³aw Halik <sthalik+use...@tehran.lain.pl>
wrote:
> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
> are illegal to possess.

I don't see that as strange. If someone has copyright ownership over a
certain arrangement of bits, then surely its no different from other
forms of ownership.

Of course it would be silly if someone owned the rights to a very
small arrangement of bits, which other people might naturally want to
use in their own arrangements, but for storing any reasonable amount
of code, the arrangement of bits will be large enough that it can be
assumed unique.

At certain times there really isn't any substitute for common sense in
law. If something is clearly a manifestation of copyright material,
then it's copyrighted, regardless of its representation.

Stanisław Halik <sthalik+usenet@tehran.lain.pl> writes:

> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
> are illegal to possess.

Probably not any stranger than that certain arrangements of atoms or
molecules are illegal to possess...

On 2008-09-10, Stanis?aw Halik <sthalik+usenet@tehran.lain.pl> wrote:
> In comp.lang.lisp Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
>> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
>> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
>> Shannon's information theory.
>
> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
> are illegal to possess.

Wonderful; when are you available for free labor?

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:27:30 +0000 (UTC), Stanis?aw Halik
<sthalik+usenet@tehran.lain.pl> wrote:

>In comp.lang.lisp Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
>> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
>> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
>> Shannon's information theory.
>
>It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
>are illegal to possess. Worse yet, ASH and LOGIOR it together, then it
>makes an illegal number.

Technically "possession" is not illegal. It is illegal to copy
without license, to seek an unlawful copy, and to profit from an
unlawful copy. But should you simply find an unlawful copy or one be
gifted to you without solicitation, then you've done nothing wrong.


FWIW, prior to internet radio, I had occasions to download free music.
I could rationalize it because there are far more one-hit-wonders than
consistently good musicians, radio would only play the one track the
label paid them to play and I was (still am) unwilling to buy an album
with many tracks of noise to get one good song.

If I found I liked an album or an artist generally, I always purchased
the CD(s) and created my own MP3s tailored to the music. I've tried
several of the internet music services and have been pretty uniformly
dissatisfied even when paying extra for supposed "high quality"
versions. I play with the MP3 settings and frequently make several
attempts before I get a version I think is close enough to the track
on the CD - there's always some difference to be heard but I can't
always figure out what setting(s) to tweak.

If a song is a one-hit and there is no CD single to be had, I try to
find the best MP3 version to purchase individually. This happens more
often than I would like - upon hearing more from a new artist I
frequently find I prefer some track other than the one being hyped.
But there is such wide variation in fidelity among the various service
that I've concluded that most everyone using internet music services
is tone deaf and the people making the MP3s for them don't care how
anything sounds.

George

On Sep 6, 7:36*am, "John Thingstad" <jpth...@online.no> wrote:
> På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:11:55 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro *
> <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-09-06 07:09:19 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpth...@online.no> said:
>
> >> But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not *
> >> involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
>
> > Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this *
> > argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor writers, *
> > nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs, etc., etc.
>
> > Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society *
> > with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the *
> > cost of merely copying it.
>
> > Internet culture has legitimized theft as long as the victims are *
> > musicians or hollywood. Sad how cheap people have elevated their *
> > unwillingness to part with money to some sort of faux natural law of *
> > information technology.
>
> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the artist's*
> don't.
> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit *
> margins.
> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus *
> earnings.
> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad

art should be free

On Sep 6, 10:18*pm, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-
s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-06 17:14:25 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpth...@online.no> said:
>
> > To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.
>
> Taking something that belongs to someone else is not "a more realistic
> pricing of services," it is what we call stealing.

well whos takign anything?
If I buy an album its MINE
if I then giev to friend so be it
thats not stealing

In comp.lang.lisp Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> So here's my humble opinion. Get use to free riders,
>>> I'm used to freeloaders (I think this is the slang term you're looking
>>> for here). I just want them to stop passing off their rationalizations
>>> for their freeloading as if it were some sort of logical corollary of
>>> Shannon's information theory.
>> It seems strange that certain data of type (vector (unsigned-byte 8))
>> are illegal to possess.
> Wonderful; when are you available for free labor?

You mean my BSD-licensed software? Infringing on that would tantamount
to plagiarism. Anything else follows the license agreement.

--
The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying