Software piracy

Software Piracy means the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted patented material. Software piracy is by law illegal. But it is debatable. Some people think its okay and some people don't. There are a number of social issues about software piracy. A lot of people commit software piracy. A lot of these people are aware of it, but they are able to persuade themselves into doing it. This is because they don't have such a high morale. They don't feel any guilt about committing such a crime. This is partly the society's fault.

It is proven that the environment people are raised in helps create the characteristics of the people. If people can persuade themselves into doing something bad, then the society has a problem. Society should teach their children to have a good morale by creating a nice environment that will make a good example. The social issue is that why doesn't the society try better to make more ethical people to decrease software piracy. There are also a group of people who commit software piracy who have difficulties distinguishing between freeware, shareware and commercial software.

This means that the society is not clear about these distinctions. I am sure a lot of educated people also do not know the difference. The society in my opinion is not putting in enough effort into this. The society should put in more effort to try and distinguish these freeware, shareware and commercial software. Most students don't have the money to buy new software. If it is illegal to make copies, then most students will not be able to afford the new software, or even the old software. This is a problem, especially to university students, because students are not able to obtain a lot of these software.

The social issue is why the society doesn't put in more effort to try and distribute software to the students. I am sure that the quality of education will increase if students have better tools. Better education, in the long run, will make society better off. Software budgeting is often inadequate for the consumers. A lot of companies buy low quantities of software even if the employees need it. So, the employees steal the software, and then delete it when there done with it. If companies spent more money on software, then there will be less stealing. Software are constantly updated.

Most software has at least on update every month. After the upgrade, the older software are not worth a lot. Some people believe that it is okay to steal old software because it doesn't have much or any value to it. This is a very debatable issue, but I believe that if it is illegal to steal new software, then it would be illegal to steal old software. There is a difference between theft and software piracy. In theft a good is lost by someone. But, in software piracy there are no products that are actually gone. Therefore, some people believe that software piracy is not an act of stealing.

But information is being copied. A lot of people also believe that the producer of software should be making a profit for sharing their software. This a very debatable issue. Some people believe that software should not be priced unless the consumer is making a profit from it. For example, if a person uses a software to make profit, then the producer of that software should get a piece of that profit. But, if the person was using the software for educational purposes, then the producer should have the morale to share his/her software for free.

As information and computer technology develop more, software piracy will become a bigger issue when it already is a big enough issue. The society should understand the importance of this issue and should think of a solution. In the long run it will make the society better off. ITGS: Interfaces adapted for the disabled With the introduction of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and the advances of input/output technologies, there has been a shift of perspective, from user interface programming tools to environments for designing interaction.

Many developments and implementation support is needed to facilitate user interfaces for different user groups with diverse requirements and abilities. The concept of User Interfaces for All has been proposed as a tool to efficiently and effectively address the numerous and diverse problems related to the accessibility of interactive applications in different contexts of use. Currently, there are no development tools to practically support the construction of User Interfaces for all. A distinction that needs to be made is the emphasis on adaptability as opposed to adaptivity.

This is due to the compelling need to consider adaptations during the early design phases as otherwise no accessibility of the user interface by the target user group can be ensured. Consider for instance an adaptive user interface which can adapt certain dialogue characteristics, based on assumptions about the users drawn at run-time. Such a facility is not useful in the context of disabled user groups, because it takes no account of the fundamental problem of accessibility. In other words, if no interaction can take place, due to some disability, no assumptions can be drawn and therefore no adaptation can be practically supported.

Consequently, adaptation is concerned with both initiating and sustaining interaction. In this sense, adaptability is a pre-requisite for adaptivity, and needs to be addressed explicitly. Web content is also currently unavailable for the disabled Language independence of GUIs, making computers accessible to a very wide range of users, including those with special needs, and very small children We need language everywhere in our daily life. Most of the time this is not a problem – It's not like you need to be tri-lingual to read a book or read a manual.

Besides, to not use language and still get the point across, you need symbols or colors, and this is still a language. It would definitely be nice if there was only one language in the world, as well as only one currency, one unit system (We almost have this one, except for the United States), and one of each of all the other formats and standards. Some of the other things may be possible, but language is hopeless. It is simply too big of a thing, too hard to teach and spread. People have attempted to make such languages, (see Esperanto: http://en. wikipedia.

org/wiki/Esperanto) and although these languages sound very useful on paper, few people go to the trouble to learn them, and they are not taught widely. However, I digress. On books and similar applications, language is required; this is not so when using computers. Anybody who has used a computer must have noticed that the interface has no full sentences and few words. This is intentional, so that the interface does not become cluttered with words everywhere in such a fashion that one cannot understand which button to press. Any words or sentences directly on the interfaces are only for explanation.

The more words there are, the more trouble it is to translate the bugger into another language and the more time it takes to use since you have to read all the text – Bad language can make a button seem like it does something else if you don't real the whole description ("Close this window" and "Cancel and Close the program")! Thus, people have moved away from words. Are there still too many words on the interface though? Task bars and option windows must be translated and read, and all but the simplest of programs are unusable to small children and foreigners who cannot read what is written on the screen.

And yet, too many proprietary icons are even worse; it is a serious chore for the user to do anything, even if they canread the language! Does that little star-shaped paper icon with a pencil on it mean "special paper effects", "automatic paper cutting", or "build star shaped building with a pencil – shaped tactical missile"? You cannot tell unless you slide your mouse over it to get the little help ticker – if it's a cheap program, you might not even get the help ticker! And this does not help children use the program either.

What we really need is a set of standard icons, colors, and better help than tickers. There are already a few icons that are pretty much standard; the opening paper file is load, the floppy disk is save, the flying envelope is send as email, and the ugly printer is print. If there could be more standardized icons, then the learning curve for moving between different programs is much reduced. To solve the language barrier and to make certain button's functions immediately apparent to foreigner and child alike, colors must be used.

Instead of "Yes", a green button with a check; for "No", a red button with a X; for "Options", a yellow button with a wrench; and for "Help", a blue button with a question mark. Such a conversion of the most used buttons in computers today would make cross-language use of a program much easier and would probably result in less looking for buttons. Many gestures are common throughout the world today – nodding your head, shaking it, tilting your head, and a little twisting of the hand and such. If such gestures could be utilized in using a computer, it would have a profound impact on office life.

The guy in the opposing cubicle would be nodding his head , the guy beside you shaking his, and the guy across the hall smashing his monitor in to get his message across. It would be another step in actually communicating to your computer, and a child could easy do it intuitively, as well as a Frenchman on an English computer. A simple form of international sign language involving the head as well as the hands would seem to be quite easy to create and immediate to learn and would greatly expand this possibility of gesturing to your computer. It may even be a start on that international communication language discussed earlier.