the moral compass

I'm going to pull you up on that last one..

Posting to UKRM in working hours isn't theft[1] in fact where I work the
company policy states so long as it doesn't interfere with your work
you're not doing anything dodgy you can use the Internet freely.

If anything having some interesting distractions make me more
productive.

[1] Especially where the hours worked always end up more than those
contracted.

 

you won't let it lie, will you ;-)

 

yup, sounds like Ace all right...

 

There can't be many jobs where significant amounts of spare time can't
be filled with more or different work rather than play. And there can't
be many shareholders content to know that employees have sufficient
spare time to go surfing.

Plus - if your work involves mostly sitting in front of a screen then
shouldn't your relaxation (which is inevitable and desirable in limited
amounts) happen away from the screen?

 

Some companies even encourage you to do this. At work we had Borland
repeatedly sending us full copies of JBuilder in an effort to get us
to switch from using Eclipse as our IDE.

Given Eclipse is OS and pretty much matches JBuilder's feature set
this was an easy decision to make.

 

Since I went technical/sysadmin again my work happens in bursts, I'll
start something off.. keep checking on it whilst it runs.. fix problems
as they happen. Generally juggling a couple of things at a time.

In any hour there could be a fair number of 5 minute dead spots, where I
can't start something new, but at the same time can read a few posts..
check my e-mail.. make a call. I'm usually on the phone whilst doing
something else, etc.

As above, not really an option if I've still got to keep checking on
stuff.. As I am doing right now in fact.

Or was. It's done.

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:02:12 +0100, Dr Zoidberg. wrote:

But he might have paid £50 for the cut-down version; or a tenner for some
other less-functional but adequate alternative.

 

Sofware developers are people, too!

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:37:22 +0200, mb wrote:

A few years ago, it was common for site licences to explicitly permit a
copy to be installed on a desktop pc in the office and a laptop or another
desktop at home. This seems to be less common nowadays, from what I see.

 

It isn't OK. It always irks me when people bandy about requests for
licence keys and the like, as if it's nothing. I must remember to have a
go at the next person who does it.

 

There's no way I'd ever buy a Ferrari, so it's OK if I nick one of those,
is it?

If I'm not prepared to pay for something, why should I have it?

 

You are one seriously fucking thick ****. I'm not joking, or
complimenting you. You are a fucking thick ****.

Does living your life give you pleasure?

 

Because people (and UKRM-ers - some more than others) are hypocrites.

 

And I bet most of them have got families to feed also

And almost any trick in the book that will encourage people to buy
their software will put food on the table.

It seems that some of the tricks include freebe samples of previous
versions of software distributed via magazine, free or very reduced
price software to schools - students, early releases of current
software via warez, especially if files or facilities are not backward
compatable with prior versions.

It does seem at times with some companys that they may on the surface
condone software piracy but deep down they have other hidden addenda's
like overall sales figures, speed of sales and market penetration.

Look at microshite, within the UK you try buying a machine off the
shelf without their software installed or find a student that is
familier with office type software that is not theirs.


--

Kevin - Basildon
pushbike (Retired)
CG125
GPZ305 (her's)
BOTAFOT#67 BOTAFOF#23
OSOS#29

 

Final Cut Pro.... YKIMS. At 999USD it's a bit on the steep side, though.

 

darsy :

Obviously it's not OK; that most people seem not to understand this is
not really a much of mystery either.

 

simonk wrote

I get the impression that feeling is mixed. I also get the impression
that much of the anti is little more than luddism rather than informed
opinion.

 

SteveH :

So use a cheaper alternative, if it's not worth while buying the full
Photoshop product. That you're prepared to steal it to use it seems to
suggest you think it's worth more than the 50 quid for the light
version, or $20 for some cheapware product.

Given that decent software engineers cost 'several' hundred quid a day
to keep working, and something like Photoshop has years of man-days
behind it, the cost is not surprising.

 

SteveH :

And you still can't understand why Photoshop costs?

Moron.

 

Muck :

Give it a few years, and it will be almost impossible for the average
bod to steal software, and fairly easy for the corps. to detect when
they have, and throw a summons at them.

Possibly they'll think differently then...