peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino) (02/02/91)
>From: sburke@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Scott Burke) > Name an application that requires 288K to run... I can name an application > that should use a PC or palmtop!! ;-) Just because YOU can't think of an application doesn't mean none exists. How about ANY DATABASE APPLICATION? For example, say, inventory control? You go lug your PC and batteries down the aisles; I'll take the 48, and upload to a PC when I'm done. > In the same vein, what if your application requires THREE 128K cards? Then obviously, you need another device for your application. What is this statement supposed to mean? That the idea of needing 2 128K cards is ridiculous because you couldn't think of a use? >> I started by saying that I was playing devil's advocate. That's because >> I would not pirate software. On the other hand, I truly believe that >> I have the right to protect my investment from something as trivial as >> static discharge. I DO NOT buy software that I cannot personally back up. > >You have that right. My point is it is _not_ necessary to back up a reliable, >solidly tested ROM card, Then I guess it's a moot point. I have that right. Period. I appreciate the fact that you talked to HP about static discharge (which I brought up only as an example). Now go call God, and make sure MY card won't ever get zapped by static, stolen, accidentily stepped on, lost, etc., and I won't bother to back it up. The issue isn't the software; it's the media. If I am licensed to use the software, I have the right to make sure it's always available to me. > and that no one has yet demonstrated a supportable >reason for needing more than 1 slot (assuming a merged 128K RAM card). I am >a developer, and _I_ don't need 2 slots. I am certainly _not_ going to write >programs that _do_ need that! Gee, so since you don't, I guess no one else ever will, either. I'm glad you told me that, otherwise I would have thought it's possible. >(I don't think this necessary, but it is not my intention to demean or insult >any of the other participants in this discussion; Contrary to what you may think about my above prose, this is not my intention, either. I realize I used some rather pointed replies to get across my ideas. I think you, as a developer, have a biased opinion based on your legitimate concern. You cannot say the same about me, since I'm neither a developer or a pirate. My point is this: you cannot say that posting of the code is irresponsible, just because the potential for abuse exists. (That would be like saying the selling of guns is irresponsible simply because of the potential for abuse.) As a developer, you are using the "irresponsibility" angle as a method of defense, and that isn't fair to the poster. And that's the REAL reason I decided to play devil's advocate! >sburke@jarthur.claremont.edu peraino@gmuvax.gmu.edu
EBERBERS%yubgef51@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (____ Zarko Berberski ____) (02/03/91)
> My point is this: you cannot say that posting of the code is > irresponsible, just because the potential for abuse exists. Yes, this seems correct but why so much bandwidth waste about abotu the code that was already posted :-) Well, not complete code that would backup a ROM-card but a routine that provides all neccesary data to let hp-48 do it itself. No, I'm not going to say where it is (actualy i'v stripped all headers from it) :-)
frechett@spot.Colorado.EDU (-=Runaway Daemon=-) (02/05/91)
In article <C577275256FFA04F79@ISUVAX.BITNET> TNA32@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (FRINGE) writes: >Recently there's been a lot of talk about the "backing up" of ROM cards. >Ok, you're not a developer. You're not a software pirate. "Go call GOD"?? Ok, let's not get crazy here.. ;) Most of what you say make sense and I think you tend toward one extreme but I would like to address a couple points. > > >not. ROM cards are VERY relaible. I carry insurance on my calculator and >its peripherals, they're expensive, I know my insurance is there, I know it >will take care of things. That's what it's for. Somebody steps on your It will NOT take care of worn contacts. I think this is the ONLY valid concern regarding copying of cards.. I think most of the other reasons can be shot down as easily as you shoot them down but this one worries me. The hp48sx IS a one slot machine, and if you consider that I already have an EQ lib and have an EE card on backorder and I also plan to get the EE library card, this could induce some serious wear on cards and the calculator. Is your insurance going to cover wear incurred by the reapeated insertion and removal of cards? >Get real. I am. > >The point was, if you need that much guts to run a program, you shouldn't [...] >It's a very powerful tool, that's been adapted to do many things that I'm sure >it was not designed to do. It's very flexible, and can indeed perform many HEH!! If it was not designed to do what it does then why the hell did they make it DO what it does. I think that yes, it is a calculator but I think that it can also be anything that you want it to do. The design was to NOT limit us into any given path. If this wasn't so, then they wouldn't have provided the memory scanner and SYSEVAL. >IT'S A CALCULATOR, NOT GOD IN A BOX. It's not JUST a calculator, but I might agree that it is not "GOD I A BOX". >Chill people. Likewise. [...] >have a reasonable chance of failure. Should it do so, that's what warranties >are for. If you should lose it, it's lost in fire, whatever, you do not have >the right to just load up your spare copy into ram and use it. See argument re. pins above. > [...] >Mike.
akcs.joehorn@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Joseph K. Horn) (02/05/91)
Man, I just can't let this go by without comment... My EQ library card was ground to dust on the 405 freeway last Thursday through a set of circumstances that need not be relived here. I'm just glad that I can still use the software that was on it, however, since I previously had copied its contents onto my PC's hard disk. Put that in your smoke and pipe it. [-jkh-]
akcs.joehorn@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Joseph K. Horn) (02/05/91)
Xeno -- You asked for responses, so here's mine. Right on, dude! [-jkh-]
hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) (02/05/91)
What rom cards for the 48 are available out there? Is there a list of them out there with reviews? I did not know that any were out. I gess I am just a little out of step with the world.
rrd@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ray Depew) (02/05/91)
> 2) ROM cards can run as high as $500 (that I've seen so far). If a company > is willing to guarantee me that they would Fed-Ex me a new card FREE OF CHARGE > on the occassion that mine should break (without first receiving the broken > one), then I would rest easily, but as it is, I have a $500 investment tied > up in a very small basket that I could easily snap in two. Umm... Is this from the same guy who said: * If [HP] * didn't even try to invert a matrix larger than 8x8, they deserve the penalty * of replacing every flawed calculator. It is not OUR fault that the entire * calculator must be replaced. So whose fault will it be that your card is broken (stepped on, dropped, gnawed by wild dogs,...)? Why, then, would you expect that you be FedEx'ed a new card, free of charge, by the mfr.? Seems to me that someone is not living in the real world here. If you're afraid of losing something vital that costs you $500, then it's time you bought some insurance and used it. It sounds like you want someone to babysit your 48 and peripherals for you, for free. You can't get something for nothing in this universe. Get real. -- Ray rrd@hpfitst1.hp.com (Wow, if you read between the lines, this even applies to ROM copying!)
jcohen@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (Josh Cohen [890918]) (02/14/91)
WHat about when you buy just about any program and the first thing that the manual says (even MSDOS!) is BACK UP YOUR ORIGINALS!! .. just in case... maybe you should get real.. jcohen@scarecrow.csee.lehigh.edu
TNAN0@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (02/15/91)
> Seems to me that someone is not living in the real world here. If you're > afraid of losing something vital that costs you $500, then it's time you > bought some insurance and used it. [more stuff] Look, it's simple. If I buy a $500 piece of software, I buy the software (or perhaps the right to use it under a licensing agreement). I am NOT paying $500 for a stupid little piece of metal and silicon that can be broken by normal use (yes, this includes the occasionally dropping, jarring, and possible stepping-on that calculators typically endure). Therefore, I expect the packaging of the product I am purchasing to be protected against such harm. In this case, it is a rom card. I will NEVER pay $500 for a ROM card... But the indefinite use of the software is WORTH $500. This is my point. It is not my responsibility to protect the frail storage techniques of these card vendors, so... The vendor will either replace my cards for free or I shall copy them myself for personal protection. Thank goodness you don't lose ownership of your car if your title gets burned in a fire, aye??? ---Xeno
frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) (02/18/91)
[The original posting contains a number of "Therefore..."s and "So..."s, implying that the legal system is based upon logic. Interesting idea, that; maybe someone should try it some day. Until then...] In article <BC0B9E2CA39FA04726@ISUVAX.BITNET> TNAN0@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes: >Look, it's simple. If I buy a $500 piece of software, I buy the software >(or perhaps the right to use it under a licensing agreement). Not unless you explicitly negotiate that in advance, or the U.S. has recently enacted some pretty funky consumer rights legislation. >I am NOT paying $500 for a stupid little piece of metal and silicon that can >be broken by normal use (yes, this includes the occasionally dropping, >jarring, and possible stepping-on that calculators typically endure). If you pay $500 for a ROM card with some software on it, and you step on it, and then call the vendor and say: "I stepped on my ROM card, please send another for much less than $500," do not be surprised if they say: "No." >It is not my responsibility to protect the frail storage techniques >of these card vendors, so... The vendor will either replace my cards for free >or I shall copy them myself for personal protection. Do not be surprised if the supplier disagrees with you in both cases. Do not be surprised if a judge and jury agrees with the vendor. >Thank goodness you don't lose ownership of your car if your title gets burned >in a fire, aye??? Does not compute. "Software is to title as ROM card is to car" makes sense. Burn your car, and you still own what's left of it, but you don't get another car for free. Hence car insurance. See also ROM card insurance. -- Frank Wales, Grep Limited, [frank@grep.co.uk<->uunet!grep!frank] Kirkfields Business Centre, Kirk Lane, LEEDS, UK, LS19 7LX. (+44) 532 500303
TNAN0@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (02/20/91)
> "Software is to title as ROM card is to car" makes sense. > Burn your car, and you still own what's left of it, but you don't get > another car for free. Hence car insurance. See also ROM card insurance. I'm sorry, but the software IS the commodity, not the ROM card. ROM cards provide absolutely NO useful purpose aside from storing software. Software, however, does provide usefullness... Thus, I am paying for the software (or the right to use it under license)... and YES, that IS the way it works under the law (to my and my lawyer's knowledge). Regardless... I'm getting sick and tired of defending my case from both sides... I do not believe that vendors should be expected to replace cards for free... But if they do not, then they should expect us all to protect our investments - via insurance OR via backups. 1) Insurance agrees to pay the vendor to purchase another card under the condition that I pay the insurance company money on a regular basis. It is quite obvious that the vendor would like this since he/she gets to sell a ROM card for $500 that costs (relatively) very little to make to the same customer twice. Well, if I were to maximize profits, I would find that it would pay to produce particularly fragile cards. Perhaps an argument would be "No, because the customers wouldn't buy them." Well, this must be wrong as many producers ARE producing fragile cards-- referring not JUST to HP cards, but synth cards, video game carts, etc... Advantages: Cards are protected Disadvantages: Insurance costs, delays in replacement, encouraging vendors to provide short-life cards. 2) Backups are legal for all software (or so they were last time I checked). I have never seen a licensing agreement tell me NOT to make personal backups and software provided for that purpose often states that personal backups are legal for all commercial software. Advantages: Software is protected Disadvantages: ROM card itself is not protected Now, for those of you who feel that feel backups are wrong, consider expecting vendors to replace cards. For those who feel that vendors replacing cards are wrong, consider backups. For those who feel both are wrong, explain WHY -- do not try to convince me it's not legal (unless you are a lawyer and can site a couple of cases). Tell me why personal backups are bad... Is it pirating? NO --- pirating is not even an issue so don't try to make it one. If you don't see why it's not an issue then you aren't reading the question: "What is wrong with personal backups?" It has nothing to do with vendor interests, except that they don't get extra $$$ from insurance companies. It has nothing to do with pirating -- pirating IS illegal, but the crime is not the copying, it is the EXCHANGING. Please, don't just try to criticize me. If you have an opinion, back it up [no pun intended]. I seem to remember a similar argument I had when I was five. Everyone was dead set on convincing me that it was illegal to remove matress tags. ---Xeno P.S. Xeno has been a friend-given nickname for many years -- if anyone else wants to insult me for considering him/her a friend, please do so personally: Gary Snethen 515-294-5491 Friley 4441 Ames, IA 50012