This is mistaken for Windows. Even if programs are run from Program Files, they will often source their DLLs from other locations.

Also Library Genesis is amazing: http://libgen.io/search.php?req=knuth

It's everything I dreamed of when I was a kid. I used to spend hours at the local library scouring through crummy "Learn C++ in 24 hours" type books.

http://custodians.online/ is worth a read too.

So firstly I agree, $40 seems like a lot. I personally couldn’t justify it at the moment. Particularly when the reproduction cost is nearly zero.

But $40 also doesn’t seem like a lot to pay for a book that will probably not sell more than a few thousand copies. Most likely revenue generated won’t fully cover the time and effort required to create such a book.

But... the author is also a professor at MIT. I feel like if this work wasn’t somewhat publicly funded, it really should have been.

In the end, I’m left morally confused. But it feels like something is wrong in the world when a book like this is available only to a select few, when for the same capital outlay it could be available to everybody.

Only to a select few? For $40? The book costs less than most console video games.

This is in the western world... imagine how many people in the world can’t afford this book. On a global scale... very few people could afford this book (or a 40USD video game).

It makes me kind of sad that you’d so casually suggest that this is not the case. Makes me think that perhaps people in the tech world don’t have a great understanding of how poor many people are...

To those who cannot afford it, here’s 2.5 years of my side work for free http://billsix.github.io/bug

What you said is more than a select few could afford a $40 book.

The topic being discussed is, the morality of charging so much/piracy.

Good work plugging your github though!

Maybe 10%, 5%? Other than repeating this obviously wrong statement, would you like to provide some evidence that >20% of the world population can afford this book?

Most people, at any income level, would not find value in this book. The fraction of people who find value in the book maybe correlated with income.

There are a large number of people who might benefit from access to this book (or similar books) would can not afford to legitimately purchase it.

Given that only a small fraction of the world population can afford this book (I estimated 5%, happy entertain other estimates) it seems likely that the majority of people that could benefit from access to this book, could not afford to buy it.

I find that unfortunate.

Pirate away dude. The piracy of JSTOR repos didn’t help the global poor population, nor will piracy of this book.

Also if you were to somehow poll everyone reading this and ask "Did you buy this book?" you'd get some number, x. But if the book were priced at $5, then $5y would be much greater than $40x.

I bought a bamboo fineline pencil for $50 the other day. It's a tool that will serve me for at least a year. It's unclear whether this book would.

I want work like this to exist, and for the author to be rewarded for it. But ultimately, in an era when words are infinitely and instantaneously copyable, the economic value of words seems to drop.

Given the choice between stealing knowledge and not stealing knowledge, when you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, where's the harm?

I think you could've made the same sort of argument against movies or music before netflix and napster, but here we are, and the markets still seem thirsty for new content.

Because reasonable adults are paying for content which they want, directly via movie tickets, indirectly via e.g. Netflix and Spotify.

As a working adult, time spent reading a book is both more limited and more valuable than $40. If you wouldn't have bought it anyways, why is it worth your time stealing and reading it?

Although it was an unpopular opinion at the time, I agree with Metallica's outspoken moral opposition to Napster circa 2000.

Libraries “steal” money from authors by making books more freely available, in largely the same way that piracy does.

They also make books available to people who otherwise couldn’t afford them.

This is literally the same thing as getting a book from a library. The exact same argument applies.

Throwing Latin around doesn’t progress a discussion.

To me you pretty much typify what’s wrong with modern tech culture, a total lack of empathy or understanding that there is a world outside of that which you live.

This is published by MIT press, but the author (Friedman) is a professor at Indiana University.

Even though watching that, I probably think I understand Dependent Types then I'll read the Little Typer and discover my intuition was wrong like when I read the Seasoned Schemer and thought I already knew everything there was to know about the concept of higher order functions.

At least local libraries actually buy the book to support the authors.

Carpenters and other craftspeople who earn far less than the denizens of Hacker News buy whatever they need to further their business. They don't steal others' tools.

You act as if I have $40. Would it surprise you to learn my power was cut off within the last few months?

Another point: "Stealing" implies something was lost. The words are still there, even if I have copied them.

The game industry and the iPhone app store have proven that when you price something closer to $1, it will generate exponentially more revenue than $40.

There was a lot of energy put behind those words, and I expect to get paid a modest sum for it. The means of knowledge transmission aren't free, just as you discovered that while a river wants to be free, the mechanism of converting it to useful energy and transmitting it to you isn't free.

That may sound like a dismissive question, but it's at the crux of our disagreement. If we can resolve that, we might be able to see eye to eye.

Further, it is an author's prerogative (whether that author is a company or an individual) to set the terms of the pricing. As a consumer you can choose to accept it and pay the price, or come up with an alternative model (like iTunes or the App Store) that changes the market.

I resent it intensely that after putting my own money and time and effort into a project (took a full year off a job), somebody just pirates it so easily. And then attempts to claim moral high ground with weasel phrases like "knowledge wants to be free" and "class barriers".

Is that an accurate summary? I am trying to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what you're saying.

What is the difference between someone doing this, which is an illegal victimless crime, and recreational drug use, which is also an illegal victimless crime? Why is one immoral and unethical, but not the other? Furthermore, why is it justifiable to believe that it's an important right to be able to ingest whatever you want into your body as long as you're not harming anyone else? And are you sure the same argument doesn't apply to this case?

I write a book, put it out on the market. Someone copies it and puts it up on a website (crime alert). Someone like you publicises it. I don't get paid because from your point of view, it is out there free for the taking. Meanwhile, I have lost hundreds or thousands of potential sales from people who may have paid, but have now been tempted to join your illegal caper. Everyone revels in the very public theft.

Which is why I seek out comments like yours that glorify piracy and tell them to bugger out of _my_ life. They are most welcome to their lives as long as they don't adversely affect mine.

No you haven't, and there lies the crux of the argument. Many of those who helped themselves to the free copy wouldn't have purchased it at the retail price anyways, even if there were no free copy to be had. There is a financial loss yes, but multiplying the total number of free copies by the profit to the author off purchased copy yields a greatly exaggerated figure.

You didn't respond to my actual comment. Again, it is victimless because no one would've bought the overpriced book except for those who have $40 to throw away on a lark.

If we focus on making a quality product at a reasonable price, sales follow. The fact that technology has reduced this price to near $0 is unfortunate but is merely a consequence of computers.

I get that technology is often upsetting, but why take it out on users? The way to win is to pay attention to trends and adapt, not wish the world were different.

Riddle me this: Why did people write books before there was an economic incentive for them to? The crux of our disagreement appears to be this: it wouldn't hurt the world for us to return to those times. And technology seems to make this inevitable.

I wish I could get paid to write programming languages all day, but many people wish they could be paid for many things that are not feasible. Are you so sure your book would have maid those thousands of dollars in an era before it was possible to widely distribute it? Who would buy it? And moreover, who would hear about it and how?

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate.

It's always interesting to watch Stallman's writings become reality.

In fact, this is so prescient as to be worth quoting in full:

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Substitute "Microsoft Support" for "Apple". We even have officially-licensed and bonded programmers now: The $100 developer ransom.

Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.

You claim you are a victim. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are people who can't afford your work who would otherwise be enriched by it. Of the two victims, it's hard to say which is worse. Especially given that people will continue writing books even when there is no incentive to.

In the middle ages, books were written by the elites, for the elites. Necessarily so, because education itself was an elite activity. You want a return to those times?

"Are you so sure your book would have maid those thousands of dollars in an era before it was possible to widely distribute it? Who would buy it? And moreover, who would hear about it and how?"

Surely you don't mean to say that a product would never be heard of if there weren't the means to copy it. Surely you don't go into a theatre and livestream a play or concert or standup, because the poor "victims" outside wouldn't have a chance to be enriched. If broadway is expensive, go elsewhere for your entertainment. You don't have the right to give away or consume someone else's work just because technology brings the cost of watching it down to zero.

This is the last I am going to say about this argument. I'm quite done.

The difference is what the people who choose to do the work expect to get out of it. There are people who work on programming languages (or software) that have commercial licenses. That's their choice. Choosing to ignore their choice, to subvert the terms on which they choose to offer the fruits of their labor, is wrong.

If you can convince them to offer their work under other terms, great. Until then, respect the terms the authors (of books, languages, and software) have chosen.

This may be true for mass-market, high-volume products like mobile games, (although even there the real money is in in-app purchases). It is not necessarily true for special-interest, low-volume products like this book. In order for it to be true, you need to assume that over 40 times as many people will buy the book at $1 as will buy it at $40. Frankly, the audience for this book is so narrow that I suspect that they would eventually get three times as many free downloads as they will get sales at $40.

Passive verbs are weak (Mistakes were made, versus I made a mistake). You failed to pay your electric bill.

It's worth being aggressively negative toward such companies, because negotiating to your market value is step one in leading a good life. The fact that they would have you not do this means they don't care about the quality of your life, so you shouldn't care about their company.

At first glance, this seems to be a useless theory, since it's not refutable. But it lends itself to a belief system: by studying the universe, we gain an understanding of whatever created it. This is helpful as a motive: a reason for studying any of this at all, in absence of economic or social incentives.

This seems important. As the centuries tick by, and as we confirm and re-confirm that we are indeed alone and that we do indeed have a mostly-complete model of physics, there will become less and less incentive to analyze the corner cases. It's costly, and takes decades. But at one time, it was costly and took decades to build a cathedral. Yet we accomplished these impressive feats due to a shared belief system.

The reason I brought this up is that we often like to believe there is an advanced alien civilization tucked away in some corner of some galaxy, sending out messages via gravitational waves or neutrinos. But why do humans find this idea so seductive? It's because of an underlying loneliness: we want to believe that we are connected with the universe in some fashion, that our existence has a point, and that there is reason to do anything at all in a universe that will exist long after we've gone, long after our solar system and sun has gone. Because if there were an alien civilization, at least we would not be so alone.

In that context, a solution to Fermi's paradox is simply to believe that our very universe exists due to some higher-order phenomena not knowable within our reality. And by studying the laws of physics, we gain a glimpse into the boundary between our universe and its hypervisor.

No. It's simply that statistically, we can't believe we are the first, nor that we are unique. It would be (statistically) extremely odd if we were, and there is a bias against anthropo-centric theories.

Heck, I'd be happier if we are alone (less risk and more free land), but if we appear to be, that seems odd, and worthy of investigation. No?

EDIT: Why do you claim to speak for all our hopes/dreams/desires? "We need this" or "We want that". Frankly, that's a little collectivist and creepy.

Fermi's paradox does not ask about civilisations like ours. It asks about interstellar travelling or at least interstellar communicating species. We have not achieved this level yet so we are not the 'first' as you say. You might claim that our radio signals should be able to be detected, but they are so weak and have been travelling for such a short period of time that they may as well not exist to an outside observer. There may be millions of our type of civilisation out there presently and throughout history but they would all be undetectable to us and hence our civilisation doesn't play into the paradox.

And you seem to ignore it, but the other part of the paradox is if we can achieve interstellar travel in millions of years, that's like no time at all on a galactic scale. So it would be a major coincidence if we are within 1 million years of the first.

Even so, my point is that human technology tells us nothing about the probility of a civilisation ever developing interstellar communication because we haven't seen it happen yet. We are still at the 0 stage when going from 0 to 1. It doesn't make sense to extrapolate from our position on the technological timeline. It makes more sense to assume tabula rasa that aliens have developed this technology and then explore the implications of that.

Someone did a Bayesian analysis using probability distributions and found that, given what we observe (no aliens), there is a substantial probability we are the first civilization in the universe, or else the only one within galactic distances. They also inferred that whatever makes spacefaring life unlikely is probably in the past, not the future, which seems optimistic if you're worried about AGW or nuclear war.

"The Fermi question is not a paradox: it just looks like one if one is overconfident in how well we know the Drake equation parameters."

"The Fermi observation makes the most uncertain priors move strongly, reinforcing the rare life guess and an early great filter."

They end up with a 40% chance we are alone in the universe and about a 55% chance we are alone in our galaxy.

http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/jodrell-ba...

Personally, I think no matter how often matter-energy arrange themselves into life in the universe life remains vanishingly rare. For that reason, life should be as harmonious with itself as possible - diverse and varied but self supporting. The rest of the universe is rarely calm and stable enough for life to exist.

As for why we haven’t found life yet: we are very new to this game. We just in this last decade started being able to resolve properties of exoplanets. I don’t think we have the information to even posit a question like the Fermi paradox with any level of confidence.

One of my favorite videos is on his alternate channel, 2veritasum. Survivor Bias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qd3erAPI9w

He recently made a full length movie:

https://www.vitamaniathemovie.com/

If you don’t have funding, a team will get some and blow your bootstrapped app out of the water.

The point is, if you can serialize closures, I think you can serialize continuations.

These questions usually have straightforward answers, but some are counterintuitive.

(See the section “memory leaks”.)