Wildfire Crack request

Not psychic, just trying to get implications and motivation where there was apparently none. But you're right, I should have acknowledged what was correct in your contribution. And it is quite true and good advice that the SE does not do commercial work. Not that I can imagine anybody simple enough to believe that it would, but that's beside the point. And the point is that my comments on the SE were in response to the item earlier in the thread. Your comments seemed to be unaware of a discussion going on and so, I thought, were a little off the mark. The point being getting legitimate (not necessarily commercial, but legal) software. The earlier contributor pointed out that full, legitimate versions were distributed by SW and Inventor and contending that PTC was not up to par on that score. My contribution was to contend that, in fact, they were, in their own way, with the SE. That this couldn't be used for commercial purposes, while quite true, seemed to be beside the point, which was, that it was legitimate, nearly free (and sometimes, as Chris pointed, actually free) full blown Pro/e software for learning purposes. That was the only reason I responded as I did to your seemingly off-the-wall observations.

David Janes

Reply to
David Janes
Loading thread data ...

Actually, I did read the thread in its entirety and thought it incongruous that the lack of interoperatability between SE and retail had not been mentioned. After some expressions of mirth at supplying kosit with a bunch of gibberish called a 'license file', the debate centered around the ethical implications of using what is essentially stolen goods. Frankly, I couldn't quite figure out which side you were on after reading your rant about PTC and what they charge for maintenance.

You then mentioned "Many publishers of software do have free or reduced price learning editions of their software, legal, full versions. So does PTC." This seemingly off-the-wall observation prompted me to add my post. I would hardly consider a version of software that does not work with the off-the-shelf variety of software to be 'full', and I thought I would point that out to any user who was tempted to plop down $200-$300 USD (actually, $199.98 at JourneyEd.com) for the software about that little secret.

As a matter of fact, I happen to have 2 copies of Pro/ENGINEER 2001 Student Edition that were given to me after hanging around PTC events (it helps to be 90 minutes from Needham), so I know firsthand its limitations. PTC also published a version of ProE for IDEAs users, which was SE ....with a different splash screen. Having had this software in my possession for a couple of years I have to say that, aside from the initial installation, I've never used it. I'm no ProE guru, but what could a better-than-novice user possibly learn with SE that he wouldn't learn on 'company time'? I thought perhaps it would be nice to use it for test-driving modules we don't own, but then the encryption bug bites you in the butt: you can't use files created in retail. So, for example, if you don't own mechanisms, and you find an application (at work, of course) where MDX would possibly be of benefit, you CAN'T test it out in SE unless you re-create (from scratch!) every part needed for the assembly. Hardly seems worth the effort; just buy what you think you need.

Pro/ENGINEER Student Edition is a great piece of software.........for students. Just don't expect to use it for 'real work', not one little bit, which was the point of my post.

Peter Brown

ps. As for PTC's licensing issues, perhaps someday they will fall into line with Solidworks, et al. It's not as if they have no experience. Pro/DESKTOP (full version, not Express) allows a personal use license for the primary user at work. Just like Solidworks.

Reply to
Pete

Speaking of incongruities, why would you expect a student edition to be compatible with retail versions? The point of the student version is to function the same to educate the user, not to allow interoperability with the professional world. The student version is in fact full - it performs like a license of Pro/E with all the package trimmings.

My gripe is that PTC distributes this student version very inconsistently and according to different 'rules' each time they give it out. Sometimes they give it for free to professionals, sometimes it's $250 for students. Other CAD vendors have consistent policy.

If you're in the 'real world' and evaluating software seriously, give your sales rep a call and they will happily issue a 30-day retail license that should get you going.

Dave

Reply to
David Geesaman

"David Geesaman" wrote in message news:3f169d61$0$69839$ snipped-for-privacy@newscene.com...

Dave,

I agree that the pricing structure for Pro/E Student Edition is screwed up. In fact, I believe there shouldn't be any pricing structure for it to begin with: since it is impossible to use it for money-generating work, it should be available for the cost of shipping and handling. I also don't have a problem with PTC's decision to make SE incompatible with commercial releases of Pro, with one caveat: just like PTC makes available to colleges a conversion module, they should have a pay-per-use conversion service for people who are learning Pro/E on their own. There are many occasions where a person would like to show a portfolio to a potential employer, or evaluate a module by doing something with it in SE, etc. It should be easy enough to come up with a per-file conversion price that would not be restrictive for such purposes, but will effectively prohibit commercial use of SE. And the last issue, quite separate from the previous one: the second license for home use. SolidWorks (and several other software companies) allow you to install a second instance of your licensed software on your home computer. PTC should have done the same long time ago. I have asked their tech. rep. this question. You see, I have a desktop machine in my home office, on which I do most of the work. However, once in a while I need to do some work at the customer's facility. I have a laptop, but I don't always have access to Internet in places where I use it, so setting up a VPN connection and floating the license over it is out of the question. The PTC rep told me PTC recognizes the problem and that in fact it has been a policy of PTC's support department to tell users like me to go and do license transfer to a second computer on their website and NOT delete the original license. Of course, it makes upgrading to new builds and releases more hassle, not to mention being, strictly speaking, illegal. I don't want PTC rep's promise that PTC won't come after me for this breach of license agreement; I want their legally binding permission to install Pro/E on both computers. I have paid for the license. Is it too much to expect some modicum of trust, or at least an understanding that I am not going to be hammering on two keyboards at once?

-- Alex Shishkin

formatting link

Reply to
Alex Sh.

"dakeb" wrote in message news:bfiu47$jrt$ snipped-for-privacy@rdel.co.uk...

You know, this is as off-topic as it gets on this NG. Not to mention mostly untrue. I had to build my life here in the US from nothing, having arrived here at the age of 30 with $350 in my pocket, reasonably decent English, and an engineering degree earned in the country that doesn't exist anymore. I've had a chance (brief enough, happily) to be poor here and to associate with poor people. Based on what I've seen I am fully convinced that more than 9 out of 10 poor people in the US are poor because of the choices they made in their lives, not because they've been robbed blind by filthy rich. The remaining less than 1 is usually in a desperate need of psychiatric assistance. It feels good to sit on one's arse and complain about somebody powerful holding one down. It also is a guaranteed way of staying (a very disgruntled) poor. In fact, a heavy burden carried by all modern civilized countries is a large group of people who are making a conscious choice to do nothing or as little as possible and live off the society's charity. Our cavemen ancestors were smarter about such folks: they either slapped the lazy bums around till they got back to useful work or threw them out of the tribe. We civilized people, on the other hand, believe such methods to be inhumane and hope to convince the worthless parasites to do something useful by more sharing. The people with intellect and drive to make it are the glue that holds civilized societies together. Try setting them limits, and you'll be backsliding into stone age. I am all for the safety net for the poor, but it needs to be set low enough to give people incentive to work. If you provide an opportunity to live a modest but decent life without working, there will be people who will seize it and make a career of it (as it happens in every country with a welfare-type program), and there will be enough of these people to strangle even the modern industrial society. And lastlly, if you 'don't buy' the simple fact that sharing the world's accumulated wealth will leave everybody poor, you have something wrong with your math. It's fairly easy to estimate the combined wealth of the richest

1% of the world population. Every super-rich and the vast majority of plain rich people will fall into this category. In fact, I have a feeling that ALL rich and a lot of people normally considered well-to-do rather than rich in the developed countries will fall into this 1%. Now, assuming hypothetically that you can expropiate everything this 1% owns and turn it into cash without plunging the world into total chaos, how much will this cash help the world's poor? I'll be surprised if it'll be enough to feed and clothe them for more than a couple years. And then what? What new group will you need to convince to share (most probably under the gunpoint)? Luckily for everybody it will, indeed, never happen.

-- Alex Shishkin

formatting link

Reply to
Alex Sh.

"Alex Sh."

Alex, thanks for writing that out. I was so very fortunate to grow up as a middle-class American (aka within the top 5% of the world but don't have any idea) and if I said the same thing I wouldn't have any credibility. The US isn't perfect, but it is structured that a motivated individual will have what they need to be happy IF THEY HAVE THE SELF-WORTH AND FOCUS to make it happen. There are a million excuses used by the ones who have wasted half a lifetime without ever applying themselves, and their collective numbers have distorted the American image.

This American welcomes you. You're as pure-blooded as they come.

Dave

Reply to
David Geesaman

Thank you LBJ and your 'Great Society'

Reply to
Greg Albert

boundaries,

hypothetically

As often happens this ng has adopted America as both the centre and boundary of the universe. Sure there are spongers in every civilised nation. But that's not what I was referring to, for these people have normally had opportunities which they have turned down. Can't you see the poverty in other nations, drained by the 'western' corporate machines to provide this comfortable middle-class lifestyle of yours? This at the expense of modern-day slave labour in undeveloped countries, where people are working ridiculous hours for a pittance so you can have your bagels and espresso every morning before you get into your air conditioned luxury car to drive in congested traffic to the metropolis where you camp out all day making more money for the corporate megalomaniacs. You think that's work? Jeesh, you are but fortunate to have been born or live where you are, to have had the benefit of an education. You were lucky to be gifted with sufficient intellect to survive in the modern world. It's no more than a lucky throw of the dice at the level of the individual.

So you say we can't share out the wealth? Sure if you're talking cash. In America everything boils down to cash. But what good is cash to people with nothing to spend it on? You can't eat dollar bills. Cash is intrinsically worthless. What about investing these obscene millions in development of underprivileged countries? Helping to set up an infrastructure so that in future they can help themselves? You have to teach the man to fish, not feed him. And you need to give him the tools.

And on a local level, if these intellectuals are so clever why can't they take their mind off making obscene amounts of money, and devote some of their attributes to solve the social ills of your cities.

You thought you were poor with $350 in your pocket. You don't know what poor is. Some people don't earn that in one year. You at that time had lots of other wealth. You had an education the prospect of a 'wonderful' future ahead of you. Your hardship was temporary.

Now, I'm not anti-American, for all civilised nations are equally to blame. I just think it's digusting that one individual has billions of dollars when a million would be enough to live in comfort for life, and that we could do more to repay those who we have traditionally downtrodden, instead of allowing the corporate 'black hole' to suck the life out of the world until most of it is strangled.

But luckily for 'everyone' (the privileged) it will never happen right?

Reply to
dakeb

"dakeb" wrote in message > Now, I'm not anti-American, for all civilised nations are equally to blame.

Your utopic griping has shown its fundamental misconception yet again: that the super-rich have enough money to be blamed for the global misappropriation of resources. If you run the numbers for how much money all billionaires in the world total, and distribute those resources in the most developmental and efficient manner possible, it still wouldn't do squat. You're picking an easy target. In other words, instead of having your focus set on the biggest part of the big picture, you're fixated on the easy target - the ultra-rich. The ultra rich have little or no bearing on our lives unless you watch the news and suck up what the ultra-rich liberal media bloodsuckers are feeding you. Did you ever stop to think about where many of your ideas come from? An ultra-rich media mogul who is profiting off of your anger. It's a beautiful irony. Face it, your goal is that all people have adequate resources to live and be happy. Everyone in the world wants that. Instead of aiming toward diverting the massive resources of the rich western middle class, you sit in a chair and type about it irrelevantly in an Internet forum and cast blame on a handful of people you've never met and already hate. Truly effective. I'm not saying this because I have an answer. In fact I have serious concerns whether the earth has enough renewable resources to sustain the tremendous numbers of people on it today. Worse, I fear the incredible growth rates and cultures which encourage growth to gain power and stability. But I'm balanced enough to realize that comp.cad.pro-engineer has as much to do with it as the handle on my toilet.

Dave

It's fun to look under the bridge now and then, but all trolls must be left behind eventually.

Reply to
David Geesaman

"dakeb" wrote in message news:bflp0v$a2h$ snipped-for-privacy@rdel.co.uk...

If you can name other country that is more democratic, gives its people more opportunities, and is more successful economically, by all means let's use it as a yardstick. It certainly cannot be Britain with its lingering carryovers of the medieval caste system. It can't be France or Germany, both governed by socialists and environmental fanatics who are busily destroying these countries' future. I hope you are not proposing Japan with its perpetual economic crisis caused by a society that is probably the most rigid and caste-based among all industrialized nations. When was the last time a major European country had unemployment rate below double-digit level? Little wonder I prefer to use USA as basis for comparison.

If you think that the source of First World's wealth is exploitation of the Third World, you need to study the history of your own country a bit harder than you've done so far (from your email address I am assuming you are British). A basic course in accounting might be of help as well. When all is tallied up properly you find out that there has never been a colonial empire on Earth that in long term received more from its colonies than it gave to them. British Empire is a textbook-perfect example of that. That, by the way, is why there are no more colonial empires in existence: pure economic unfeasibility. Everything else - liberation movements, uprisings, etc. - is just a footnote. Had empire-building been profitable, the Earth would have long been united, most probably - under the British Crown. Too bad your righteous indignation is blinding you to the obvious fact: the much-despised mega-corporations have done more to increase the standards of living in the 'exploited' countries than all the humanitarian aid combined. In less than 50 years the first tier of 'exploited' and 'downtrodden' (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore) rose to a point where they are much closer to the First World than the Third and getting closer every year. Nobody in their right mind can call these countries 'exploited' anymore. And all because the despicable mega-corporations in their rush to make a quick buck out of these countries started competing between themselves for the better-skilled, harder-working workforce and in the process pushed the cost of labor in these countries to the point ahere these countries themselves are now exporting lower-skilled, lower-paying jobs. The next tier of 'exploited': Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., is moving fairly fast in the same direction. I am now 41. Before I retire I expect to see the mega-corporations exhaust quick-buck opportunities in the Far East and turn their attention to Africa (which is in such a big economic toilet right now precisely because it is NOT being 'exploited' enough by the mega-corporations). If 50 years from Middle Ages to modern industrialized lifestyle sounds like too long to you, remember the history of Europe. It took the European countries at least 300 years to get where they are now from conditions pretty much equal to what you now can find in the Third World. So once again, you have it entirely wrong. The western societies and their mega-corporations are not the lead weight on the Third World's neck; they are a locomotive that is pulling the Third World into modern civilization at about 6 times the rate of speed the western societies themselves managed not too long ago without the benefit of such 'exploitation'. The only faster way would be to embark on a nation-building project that will dwarf the current US undertaking in Iraq. I wonder what the European reaction would be if somebody proposed that all First World nations make an announcement like this: From this day we will not tolerate any oppression of civil liberties, genocide, corruption, etc. in the Third World. To this end, we are taking over. We'll drag you to civilization whether you like it or not. And have no doubt: taking over is the only way you can do it fast. Otherwise, all your help will be wasted, or, more likely, stolen by the local scumbags-in-chief.

I just love those preconceptions people have about America without really knowing anything about this country. Give these dollars in development to whom? The local governments? I have a better idea: let's collect this money and burn it. Or build something really expensive with it (in one of the Western countries, where there is a good chance at least most of the money and materials won't be stolen) and dedicate the building as a monument to stupidity. Again: there is NOBODY there who you can give money or resources to: the ones that have power will steal it outright, and the decent ones have no power and thus will have the money and resources stolen from them in no time. There are, again, just two ways: a) allow mega-corporations to continue their 'exploitation' (they are powerful enough to protect their resources from the local thiefs), or b) take over.

Because not all social ills can be cured with money? Now you are talking like one of your imaginary Americans: let's throw enough cash at the problem, and it will go away. Unfortunately, money can't buy everything. Too bad some Europeans don't seem to realize that.

Oh, yes, I know what 'poor' is. And I was the one that made my hardship temporary. By the way, I am willing to make a bet: drop me off in any American city with just clothes on my back and not a penny, and within a month I will have a regular source of income and a place to live. That's the beauty of this country: you mostly get what you want. You just have to want actively enough.

Actually, the fact that this redistribution will never happen is more your luck than any rich person's. Most self-made people are survivors by nature; they will find a way to carve out a relatively comfortable living out of pretty much any system. It is regular people like you and me that usually get steamrollered by all these beautiful social engineering projects.

-- Alex Shishkin

formatting link

Reply to
Alex Sh.

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.