Computer Hope
Other => Other => Topic started by: Salmon Trout on November 26, 2009, 09:39:47 AM
-
The Software - Windows - Other section has 170 torrents which fit on one page, the top one is dated today and the bottom one is dated December 2007!
-
Good for them. :)
-
It's a good job there aren't any alternatives.
-
ya i saw about this yesterday. I used to love that site..
-
Make a program and you will suddenly understand what those developers feel like whenever someone takes their programs.
-
Make a program and you will suddenly understand what those developers feel like whenever someone takes their programs.
::)
Oh yes and I hear that Mick Jagger and Bono and Nicole Kidman and all the staff at Microsoft are eating dry crusts and living in cardboard boxes because of file sharing.
::)
You raise a straw man. How many solo programmers make a living from selling software, and how many are deprived of that living by filesharers, and how many pirate downloaders would have bought the product?
-
Here is the story from PC World.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/183278/torrent_giant_mininova_forced_to_go_legit.html
-
Taking one site down will not make any difference. People will just go somewhere else for their torrents.
For every one that they shut down two new ones will pop up to fill the void. This is a losing battle on the side of the copyright holders. (kind of like drug prohibition in America).
Besides, these sites are providing links to torrents, not the actual files themselves. I don't see how they could be held liable. After all, the links are already out there, they just put them together in a large database that's easily accessible. The bottom line is that the information is already out there in cyberspace and there is no way to reel it back in. The internet has become way too massive to even attempt something like that.
-
People will just go somewhere else for their torrents. [...] The internet has become way too massive to even attempt something like that
I was reading an article in a respectable UK newspaper (The Guardian) about the "dark net" which is said to be 500 times larger than the net everybody thinks of as "the Internet". It gave details of software tools such as Freenet.
-
So are we communicating over this "dark net" now... err how does that work? Were they just alluding to the immense size of the internet and how it is pervasive in almost all communications? Or is this "dark net" something more sinister?
It certainly sounds cool. (way better than telnet) :)
-
Also called "Deep Net"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet
"The darkweb"; "the deep web"; beneath "the surface web" – the metaphors alone make the internet feel suddenly more unfathomable and mysterious. Other terms circulate among those in the know: "darknet", "invisible web", "dark address space", "murky address space", "dirty address space". Not all these phrases mean the same thing. While a "darknet" is an online network such as Freenet that is concealed from non-users, with all the potential for transgressive behaviour that implies, much of "the deep web", spooky as it sounds, consists of unremarkable consumer and research data that is beyond the reach of search engines. "Dark address space" often refers to internet addresses that, for purely technical reasons, have simply stopped working.
And yet, in a sense, they are all part of the same picture: beyond the confines of most people's online lives, there is a vast other internet out there, used by millions but largely ignored by the media and properly understood by only a few computer scientists. How was it created? What exactly happens in it? And does it represent the future of life online or the past?
Michael K Bergman, an American academic and entrepreneur, is one of the foremost authorities on this other internet. In the late 90s he undertook research to try to gauge its scale. "I remember saying to my staff, 'It's probably two or three times bigger than the regular web,"' he remembers. "But the vastness of the deep web . . . completely took my breath away. We kept turning over rocks and discovering things."
In 2001 he published a paper on the deep web that is still regularly cited today. "The deep web is currently 400 to 550 times larger than the commonly defined world wide web," he wrote. "The deep web is the fastest growing category of new information on the internet … The value of deep web content is immeasurable … internet searches are searching only 0.03% … of the [total web] pages available."
-
Make a program and you will suddenly understand what those developers feel like whenever someone takes their programs.
The most effective anti-piracy software development strategy is the simplest one of all:
1. Have a great freaking product.
2. Charge a fair price for it.
-
If there is that must dark, evil, nasty, ugly things out there. what will the future bring? It is possible to stop it using technology that already exists..
A few dyers ago, there was no internet.
The day may come when the entire internet will die.
-
But in its place shall be HIVEMIND.
-
Zysltra, heard of Cory Doctorow?
As Woody Guthrie wrote:
“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of
Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and
anybody caught singin’ it without our permission,
will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we
don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it.
Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we
wanted to do.”
Why am I doing this? Because my problem isn’t
piracy, it’s obscurity (thanks, @timoreilly for this
awesome aphorism). Because free ebooks sell
print books. Because I copied my *censored* off when I
was 17 and grew up to spend practically every
discretionary cent I have on books when I became
an adult. Because I can’t stop you from sharing it
(zeroes and ones aren’t ever going to get harder to
copy); and because readers have shared the books
they loved forever; so I might as well enlist you to
the cause.
I have always dreamt of writing sf novels, since I
was six years old. Now I do it. It is a goddamned
dream come true, like growing up to be a cowboy
or an astronaut, except that you don’t get
oppressed by ranchers or stuck on the launchpad in
an adult diaper for 28 hours at a stretch. The idea
that I’d get dyspeptic over people—readers
celebrating what I write is goddamned bizarre
So, download this book.
You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the
work
to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the
manner specified by the author or licensor (but not
in any way that suggests that they endorse you or
your use of the work).
Noncommercial — You may not use this work for
commercial purposes.
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build
upon this work, you may distribute the resulting
work only under the same or similar license to this
one.
With the understanding that:
Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be
waived if you get permission from the copyright
holder. Other Rights — In no way are any of the
following rights affected by the license: Your fair
dealing or fair use rights; The author’s moral
rights; Rights other persons may have either in the
work itself or in how the work is used, such as
publicity or privacy rights. Notice — For any
reuse or distribution, you must make clear to
others the license terms of this work.
Should be the same with anything.. software too. +movies...
-
agreed
-
agreeded
Nice word.
So Mr. Google. Are you saying that nothing should be copyrighted? Are you saying that all content should be freely available?
-
agreed is a nice word ;D
well it would be nice if nothing was copywrited
-
It would also be nice if we lived in a Utopian society, but human nature prevents it. Unless people were raise in complete isolation, with only each other to rely on, then we can't possibly pull that off. The same goes for copyrighting. In a utopian society, you own nothing as your self, but there is a collective ownership.
-
Nice word.
So Mr. Google. Are you saying that nothing should be copyrighted? Are you saying that all content should be freely available?
Well, yes on the internet, it should be. And if you want a hard copy, go out and buy one. All media content.
It all gets copied and downloaded anyways, so why not just go with the flow?
-
Well, yes on the internet, it should be. And if you want a hard copy, go out and buy one. All media content.
It all gets copied and downloaded anyways, so why not just go with the flow?
Then how would anyone ever make money?
-
It all gets copied and downloaded anyways, so why not just go with the flow?
You'd fail Moral Philosophy 101 with that argument, except possibly in Nazi Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia.
-
I find it humourous that only those with nothing to lose from it think things would be better without copyrighting.
Obviously they don't seem to realize just how much work goes into many programs- they should not be FREE, but many of the prices charged are ridiculous. I paid over 200 dollars for a Windows XP CD, and they couldn't even be bothered to provide a jewel case. I mean, OK- 200 dollars I could almost swallow, if MS was still distributing as much as they used to- the media, hard copy manuals, reference cards, etc, like they did for my copy of Visual Basic 2.0 that I have.
But 200 dollars for a freaking CD and nothing else? That's just plain silly.
the whole "it should all be free" argument seems to only be shared by those who have not contributed anything to the all and have nothing to lose and everything to gain from such an arrangement.
In a utopian society, you own nothing as your self, but there is a collective ownership.
No, not a "Utopian" society, that's called Communism. And it doesn't work. It's been tried quite a few times.
-
the whole "it should all be free" argument seems to only be shared by those who have not contributed anything to the all and have nothing to lose and everything to gain from such an arrangement.
Sometimes people get confused between free speech and free beer. Are people like Richard Stallman and the GNU people included in your remark I quoted above?
-
hmm, I was a tad ambiguous.
Linux is free- but that isn't what I mean; a large portion of people that use linux eventually contribute something to the project, and even those that don't still appreciate the work that went into it, even if they can be overly critical of it :P
The GNU people and so forth all believe in the free concept; but they also work towards achieving it for everybody.
That's OK!
I mean the people who "believe" in the concept but want everybody else to be the one making them free- likely not because they care about the concept at all but more because they want something for free themselves.
-
Look at all the videogames out there. Halo, Call of Duty, Left4Dead.
Lets take the game Call of Duty 6 for example.
To develop the game, Infinity Ward would have needed hundreds of people, working round the clock for weeks or months.
The developers are literally pulled away from their families to create the game you're pirating.
All the effort needed to create a game like Call of Duty...and you're saying it's all for nothing; and that the game should have been released for free?
Where do the hundreds of developers get their pay from? If all their stuff was pirated, how would they continue the Call of Duty series without money?
Remember this is only ONE EXAMPLE.
Same goes with software. Programs like Photoshop take hundreds of hours to develop. That's why they're so expensive - because they're such high-end programs.
Here's my rule. If you like something; Support It!
If you like the game, Buy the *censored* game.
If you like the song, support the artist and buy their albums.
-
Linux is a good example.
Let's take Ubuntu.
If you like Ubuntu, even though it's free, why not support its developers by donating a couple bucks? Right?
-
Linux is a good example.
Let's take Ubuntu.
If you like Ubuntu, even though it's free, why not support its developers by donating a couple bucks? Right?
Let's say you can't afford it though. Then you don't donate. Same with music, games and software. If you can't afford it. Download it.
That's my view, the wealthy should be paying more than the poor. Taxes should be like that too. If I was wealthy, I would buy all my music, software, games, and DVD's too.
-
honestly though, how much money are the artists and movie industries loosing when you click that download button? Not much. About 86 cents per album, and Im not sure about movies. But they might get even more money, cause if you liked it, you tell people, and they go buy it. Its advertising. Why do you think companies leak things early sometimes?
-
honestly though, how much money are the artists and movie industries loosing when you click that download button? Not much. About 86 cents per album, and Im not sure about movies. But they might get even more money, cause if you liked it, you tell people, and they go buy it. Its advertising. Why do you think companies leak things early sometimes?
Yea it gets the word around about the product.
-
im so going to get flamed for that
-
Let's say you can't afford it though. Then you don't donate. Same with music, games and software. If you can't afford it. Download it.
Does this extend to books, bicycles, and motorcycles?
The main defense used is that it costs nobody anything to reproduce- just copy some files, right? whereas with something like a book, or a motorcycle, or whatever, it would cost more to reproduce the same product- labour costs, parts, etc.
What people forget is that there needs to be something to reproduce to begin with. If the developers didn't write/compile the first copy, then nobody would be able to make these "free" copies.
that initial copy costs a LOT in developer time, company resources, etc- the costs involved, and the legal costs as well (any good software company needs a legal department; and no, it's not just for what many people suspect it is- which is usually the ones looking for people infringing copyrights made by the company- the sole purpose is to make sure the company itself doesn't get into legal hot water BEFORE it publishes something that would infringe on an existing copyright.
These costs aren't free. And of course they want to make a profit over top of that, too. Now, this is generally calculated into the unit price; many say the pricing of windows isn't fair- and really, that's something I cannot disagree with. For a component that has become so critical to the operation of what is typically regarded as the standard PC (running windows, that is) it seems silly to give it such a high price point. However, Considering the development time, the huge staff base, the support staff, etc easily number into the millions- there is probably only 10 times more copies of windows sold then there are staff; consider that these staff don't simply "go away", either- that is, while a customer buying windows is a one-time deal, the staff generally stays, and staff expect to be paid.
Of course windows is not the only product that MS sells- and their other products aren't exactly priced much less, nor do I think that MS needs to charge the relatively exorbitant prices for almost all of their products in order to stay afloat. All software companies incur these costs.
The problem is simply this: the content Software companies sell is too easily reproduced. With physical objects, like, say, motorcycles, there is a "sweet spot" of best profit for almost any product. price it too low, and they might sell more product but make a smaller profit- price it too high, and fewer people buy it; It's basic economics, really- the company needs to add on the right amount of "profit" cost to their base product price (the cost of creating the product) to maximize their revenue.
With Software, theses basic premises of economics/marketing no longer apply- it's almost as if physics laws no longer applied as far as marketing drones are concerned; the entire strategy needs to be changed. However, companies are still going with the same strategy. However, now, it's not trying to draw the most revenue as much as it is trying to price it to try to reduce the number of people resorting to pirating- this requires fairly intimate knowledge of the demographic of the target market, their incomes, etc; this type of information is only really something the companies can guess at first. Additionally, it doesn't seem to matter how cheap they can price it- they could price it at half the development cost to break even, and people would still pirate it. It's not a matter of "they cannot afford it" but rather one of "I'd rather not pay for it" which is in fact the very mindset that anybody who says "If you can't afford it, download it" in this case afford doesn't refer to monetary assets as much as it does to getting off your lazy arse and buying the *censored* thing for the reasonable price it is offered for- music albums are like 10-20 dollars; and it sounds a *censored* of a lot better then the 128kbps mp3's you downloaded the album in for free, too.
On top of this, people complain about the legitimacy checks that many products use; and windows is not the only one that does this. Why do none of the people who constantly try to crack these programs, which are often only 10 ot 20 freaking dollars, actually think, hmm, this might be worth it to buy.
the *censored* developers spent time working on a Anti-piracy component because people are too *censored* lazy to simply buy the bloody program. "It's not worth 10-20 bucks" they say. Well, go buy another program then. Or better yet- use a freeware alternative. there are freeware alternatives for everything.
Besides- the entire "I cannot afford it" argument kind of falls apart after they tell you how many ipods they got for christmas, their PC specs and so forth. "yeah, I got a Super ultra quad core and 64Terabytes of Ram and a mega uber Nvidia card but I hadz to pirate windowz cuz I couldn'tz afford it" yeah right, you bloody financially challenged goofball, try to blame somebody else for forgetting to put the cost of software on your build list. Oh! But software isn't REAL! It's virtual! Of course that makes them feel better.
Games are a special issue as well- Games are entertainment, just like movies. People assume that because they are "for fun" that they should be "for free" but while they are a product designed for entertainment they also entail the use of real work to create- things like voice actors, actors, artists, 3d modelling, level designers, programmers of course, sound editors etc. your average game costs more to produce then some other types of applications, simply because of the number of different tasks that need to be done. But people still insist on pirating them- they pirate the game, play it, and post about how great the game was and they cannot wait for the sequel. Why do they expect a sequel? What if the company goes out of business because they couldn't make a proper profit margin (of course this is usually not an issue for the "big name" type of game companies, like ID software and so forth, but it quickly becomes an issue with 1-3 man developer shops that price their product pretty close to simply breaking even). Of course, these people won't feel bad, because the original sucked anyway. (or so they will say).
Oh, I might add that this is simply against people trying to JUSTIFY pirating software. I've done it myself *GASP* but I don't try to pull off some story about how it was my grandmother's dying wish that I beat quake on nightmare skill or something.
-
Yea yea, okay if you compressed that all into one paragraph I would read it, but I really don't feel like reading that much sorry.
I know what youre trying to say but seriously... who cares, stuff is going to be copied no matter what anyone does so either go with it or don't. Your choice.
-
i couldnt afford windows, look at my computer...
and also a lot of the time the music you download is 320kbps
-
I know what youre trying to say but seriously... who cares, people are going to be murdered no matter what anyone does so either go with it or don't. Your choice.
FTFY
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Also called "Deep Net"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet
That was a good read. I was aware of Tor but I'd never heard of freenet. I might have to look into it.
By the way, did you read Ian Clarke's response to that article?
http://blog.locut.us/main/2009/11/25/the-guardian-writes-about-freenet.html
-
FTFY
That works too. It's the same with anything...
-
I can't afford Windows -- I use Linux
I can't afford Office -- I use Google Docs and OpenOffice
I can't afford Photoshop -- I use The GIMP
I can't afford to buy movies -- I watch movies in the public domain (Go 1950's film noir!)
I can't afford many games -- I buy a game I really want, and find other open source ones to play instead
If someone chooses to charge money for something they (or a group) created, let them do so. By choosing to take it without paying or getting their permission, you enter your own demise. Do something even better, stop buying things, stop downloading things illegally, and just start getting free stuff.
The $500 "edited in mums basement" film can be better than the $12,000,000 film produced in Hollywood; it is all a matter of what is in the plot.
The effort that goes into building a full game costs a lot. The programmers get paid, licensing fees get paid, the programs to make the programs are paid for... sure, maybe they could be cheaper, and maybe you are just one more person taking from them, but if everyone on earth just decided to "take" that game, you won't see a second version out of that game unless the company decides to release their code to the open source community.
And the reality of it is this: The way we are going, everyone is going to take the game.
I am just shedding light on one more perspective. I myself am guilty of "self renting" (downloading, playing for a few days, uninstalling until I can afford it) games, and downloading music (since there is no way to get around RIAA fees right now).
-
The problem with "absolutist" type moral judgements, those which start "if everybody did x" are that in the real world not everybody does (or will do) x. Everybody has their limits on what they feel comfortable doing, and different people set that limit in a different place.
-
I understand that there are different point of views, I was just expressing mine-maybe a little forcibly, but no harm meant. It's a controversial topic and like Salmon Trout said
Everybody has their limits on what they feel comfortable doing.
It also depends on your view of civil disobedience. Henry David Thoreau's essay called on "Civil Disobedience" was based the idea that you should disobey any laws you consider "unjust", but suffer the consequences.
I think most people agree with that, except the fact that you must suffer the consequences right?
-
I have always found it odd that someone who thinks it is immoral to go into a Wal-mart and shoplift a CD thinks it's OK to download pirated music on-line (yes I've done it myself). But most of my music I either ripped from Cd's or bought on-line.
That said, most music, movies and software are grossly overpriced. That has resulted in a lot of musicians, actors and movie producers becoming multimillionaires and even billionaires. If you object to that just don't buy music or go to movies.
Even so, stealing is stealing. It's not civil disobedience.
-
I wonder what those do when they have to eat ? ?
Open Source gardens in their back yard with Range Free- chickens and livestock ? ?
I think not...
-
Does this extend to books, bicycles, and motorcycles?
Well you can always get eBooks...but the issue stands. Pirating is stealing.
-
I don't think it's particularly "immoral" to shoplift a CD from Wal-Mart, and I would not think very badly of someone who did it occasionally, but I personally have never done anything like that, and probably never will. The reason is that I might get caught. The chance might be small, but I don't feel it's worth taking.
-
you have more of a chance getting caught shopplifting a cd at walmart then downloading music. And when you dl music at first you get a warning. No, wait, now they try and shhut your internet off. But when they do fine you, its worse then if you actually stole the cd.
-
I don't know where you live, but in my country (Great Britain) having a criminal record which includes crimes of dishonesty can be a real barrier to getting a decent job. Especially if that job involves trust.
-
I don't think it's particularly "immoral" to shoplift a CD from Wal-Mart, and I would not think very badly of someone who did it occasionally, but I personally have never done anything like that, and probably never will. The reason is that I might get caught. The chance might be small, but I don't feel it's worth taking.
Over here it would be pretty hard to steal a CDs- or most anything from their electronics department- since they all have littler detector things inside the shrink-wrapped case, and if you try to leave with it alarms go off.
This of course causes much anguish when your dealing with some incompetent cashier who has no concept of the word toggle, and swipes the thing twice "to make sure", and of course the second swipe reactivates the thing.
Main reason I would prefer CDs is simply because it's nearly impossible to find lossless audio of some tracks/albums to download; even 320kbps MP3 sucks when you play it on good sound card or your average stereo. Also let's me decide how to tag them when I rip them, and exactly what format too. And- of course- I can always just play the CDs themselves, too.
you have more of a chance getting caught shopplifting a cd at walmart then downloading music. And when you dl music at first you get a warning. No, wait, now they try and shhut your internet off. But when they do fine you, its worse then if you actually stole the cd.
The only people that get caught downloading are the noobs who think that p2p like limewire and frostwire's networks are watched by anti-piracy organizations. Although it can be fun to share files like "emu taking a viscous dump.wmv" and see how many people download it. Then wonder to myself how many people thought I meant an emulator on linux causing a core dump. Then I go do something productive for a change.
you have more of a chance getting caught shopplifting a cd at walmart then downloading music. And when you dl music at first you get a warning. No, wait, now they try and shhut your internet off. But when they do fine you, its worse then if you actually stole the cd.
That's not the law, that's the RIAA suing people. And of course the RIAA only really has any power where the DMCA is, which is the U.S.
Regarding software, or really, anything digital; some people feel justified simply because it isn't something tangible to them- it's really just an "impression" of 1's and 0's on a disk being copied around. And yes- many things, such as windows, are a tad expensive. However, personally, I don't think that's a good justification for pirating windows, because, for other things, if you cannot afford something, you get a cheaper model- in this case, it's possible to get Ubuntu or a similar working operating system for free, so people saying that Windows is an "essential" component of a modern PC is bollocks. warranted, it's an essential component for people who only know the essentials, but that's sort of splitting hairs.
Besides, rather then pirating something like a new game, just wait until your around 80 or 90 years old, if your lucky it will have been public domain somewhere. heh
Although I imagine a 90 year old playing guitar hero would be odd. And who knows how bad the arthritis might be. And those shingles hurt something fierce.
-
Well depending on your age, it's possible that at 80 or 90 years old you will only be halfway through your life.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
Watch the first few minutes of that and you'll see what I mean. It's quite interesting.
-
So i guess my "eating" analogy fell on deaf ears...
-
So i guess my "eating" analogy fell on deaf ears...
Guess so haha
-
honestly though, how much money are the artists and movie industries loosing when you click that download button? Not much. About 86 cents per album, and Im not sure about movies. But they might get even more money, cause if you liked it, you tell people, and they go buy it. Its advertising. Why do you think companies leak things early sometimes?
A. some companies DO lose A LOT money. Not EVERY software, media, etc. company is owned by incredibly wealthy people.
B. tactics used by the RIAA are unexceptable as they involve creating worms and releasing them into torrent netwroks and victimizing individual people with harsh hypercritical punishment in an attempt to "make an example" out of them.
C. if you absolutely have to pirate software, media, etc. and you truly like the media BUY THE MEDIA
D. never illegally resell other companies software online or locally. It's one thing to steal (yes you are stealing something) media, but to resell it at a lower price to make money is a huge display of moral corruption
-
but to resell it at a lower price to make money is a huge display of moral corruption
Stealing it in the 1st place is also...
-
when u make a program and other (crack) it is very bad feeling i live that feeling too many times :||x
-
Well you can always get eBooks...but the issue stands. Pirating is stealing.
If I could download a motorcycle, I'd have 5 of them sitting in my garage right now
-
If I could download a motorcycle, I'd have 5 of them sitting in my garage right now
can i download ramz?
-
sure!
http://downloadmoreram.net/ (http://downloadmoreram.net/)
-
I don't know where you live, but in my country (Great Britain) having a criminal record which includes crimes of dishonesty can be a real barrier to getting a decent job. Especially if that job involves trust.
Here, in the good ol' US of A, that will qualify you...
for a job in some of the larger fiduciaryy firms.
Fiduciary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal.
-
lol but it is still legal
-
you have more of a chance getting caught shopplifting a cd at walmart then downloading music. And when you dl music at first you get a warning. No, wait, now they try and shhut your internet off. But when they do fine you, its worse then if you actually stole the cd.
I'd take the heat from shoplifting a cd to downloading music off the internet any day. Apparently when you steal a cd in the US you get a minor fine and a slap on the wrists. However, if you are caught downloading music, you can get fined 40$ per song and violently sued. I can't make much sense of it. The physical cd fine is around 150$ but the virtual fine is $500?
-
violently sued... sounds painful.
-
How the heck can you justify theft based upon what penalty may be incurred ? ?
This as i see it is the root of the problem.
I'm not by any means gonna stand here on a small soapbox and tell anyone how to live their lives...that's your business...
However if your not sharp enough to have that little voice in your head determine whether you are in fact doing the right thing...or the wrong thing...i will be 1st in line to point out the difference.
End of Rant.
-
I'll try to pick up where Patio left off. I once was motivated to read a book entitled "The wealthy barber". It was written with the principal objective to make everyone that read it very,very,wealthy. (borrowed it from a public library) The basic principal,as i remember it, was that you got rich by sponging off everbody you could. For example your "roof over your head" was someone elses house that you house sat while they went on a trip or whatever. If you did make any income ensure it was always below a level that would not generate income tax. Get the drift? Now if we have a total society like that (which the author proposed should be everyones objective). I have only one question--- who pays the freight? truenorth