Komodo 8 Announcement

[Leto]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

I see what you mean. Humans survived for thousands of years without microwaves, but now they're in almost every household. Imagine if Star Trek's replicators were made real, I'm sure they'd be in almost every household too.

So just because you survived without said item doesn't mean that it isn't essential. I imagine practically everyone who's serious about chess use chess engines one way or another. I'd say they're essential to chess enthusiasts.

[S.Taylor]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

I see what you mean. Humans survived for thousands of years without microwaves, but now they're in almost every household. Imagine if Star Trek's replicators were made real, I'm sure they'd be in almost every household too.

So just because you survived without said item doesn't mean that it isn't essential. I imagine practically everyone who's serious about chess use chess engines one way or another. I'd say they're essential to chess enthusiasts.

People generally consider bread to be an essential, but it isn't necesarily so, indeed it can even be poison for some.

[Steve Maughan]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

What is immoral is the initiation of force. For example forcing someone to sell at a low price, or forcing someone to buy something they wouldn't otherwise want to buy.

Libertarian regards,

Steve

[syzygy]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

Nowadays a connection to the Internet, in most countries of the world, really is essential. A right to internet access has been recognised, for example, by the French Constitutional Court. So there likely is a legal obligation on the French state to ensure affordable internet access to anyone.

Of course this does not mean that charging $10k for a particular computer is illegal or even immoral. It suffices that affordable computers are available to anyone.

Chess engines are nowadays essential for chess enthusiasts (not so in the 1970s). But there is no right to be able to practise any particular hobby and in any event chess engines are available that are very affordable.

[S.Taylor]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

What is immoral is the initiation of force. For example forcing someone to sell at a low price, or forcing someone to buy something they wouldn't otherwise want to buy.

Libertarian regards,

Steve

What do you say about doctors or practitioners (like back treatments) who take very high prices like in excess of $100 US an hour and sometimes MUCH more?
These things i think sometimes ARE essential and life determining needs.

And similarly, what do you say about these doctors/practitioners charging the same fee for lateness, ie if a patient comes late, that the doctor takes the same amount but only provides a short treatment for the duration of the time, OR adds charge per minute to make up the required time for that treatment OR cancels the whole treatment on grounds it is too late to start, but still charges in full because of his allotted time?

[Steve Maughan]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

What is immoral is the initiation of force. For example forcing someone to sell at a low price, or forcing someone to buy something they wouldn't otherwise want to buy.

Libertarian regards,

Steve

What do you say about doctors or practitioners (like back treatments) who take very high prices like in excess of $100 US an hour and sometimes MUCH more?
These things i think sometimes ARE essential and life determining needs.

And similarly, what do you say about these doctors/practitioners charging the same fee for lateness, ie if a patient comes late, that the doctor takes the same amount but only provides a short treatment for the duration of the time, OR adds charge per minute to make up the required time for that treatment OR cancels the whole treatment on grounds it is too late to start, but still charges in full because of his allotted time?

I agree medical issues of life and death are far more complex. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a chess program!

Steve

[Steve Maughan]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

Nowadays a connection to the Internet, in most countries of the world, really is essential. A right to internet access has been recognised, for example, by the French Constitutional Court. So there likely is a legal obligation on the French state to ensure affordable internet access to anyone.

Of course this does not mean that charging $10k for a particular computer is illegal or even immoral. It suffices that affordable computers are available to anyone.

Chess engines are nowadays essential for chess enthusiasts (not so in the 1970s). But there is no right to be able to practise any particular hobby and in any event chess engines are available that are very affordable.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, who decides what is essential, and secondly who pays for it.

In the case you stated you're quite happy for a redistribution of French wealth to pay for everyone's internet. This is one reason the French economy is so bad - they penalize success and feather the nest of poverty. Whatever you penalize you get less of (in this case success), and whatever you subsidize you get more of (in this case poverty). It's a harsh truth, but a truth nevertheless.

This is way OT so it's my last post on his thread.

Steve

[S.Taylor]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

What is immoral is the initiation of force. For example forcing someone to sell at a low price, or forcing someone to buy something they wouldn't otherwise want to buy.

Libertarian regards,

Steve

What do you say about doctors or practitioners (like back treatments) who take very high prices like in excess of $100 US an hour and sometimes MUCH more?
These things i think sometimes ARE essential and life determining needs.

And similarly, what do you say about these doctors/practitioners charging the same fee for lateness, ie if a patient comes late, that the doctor takes the same amount but only provides a short treatment for the duration of the time, OR adds charge per minute to make up the required time for that treatment OR cancels the whole treatment on grounds it is too late to start, but still charges in full because of his allotted time?

I agree medical issues of life and death are far more complex. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a chess program!

Steve

I was only taking the opportunity to ask you if you know about this, too.
You say it is "far more complex", meaning that's ok and moral?

And even this:
I once had 2 inexpensive violins sent to a violin maker/repairer/restorer, for some adjustments, to be sent back to me before i was to leave the USA to go back home.

In the end he had it ready, too late to make it for the reasonably priced shipping rate, and i had agreed to pay the more expensive rate so that i should still receive it before i leave.

He THOUGHT he would catch the time but missed it and i never knew beforehand but he had to travel about 45 minutes x2 to get it to a post office further away.

He charged his same enormous fee for his travel time, a few hundred dollars, which _I_ had thought was only his fee for his one-in-the-world patent in making a cheap violin sound great.

[Steve Maughan]

I love computer chess but there is no way you'll convince me a chess program is in any way essential (how did life survive in the 1970's before chess programs?) - LOL!!

By that reasoning computers, the Internet and mobile phones are not in any way essential. Something tells me your reasoning is not convincing (even though I agree with the particular statement you're trying to prove).

They are not essential. In the context of the discussion it would not be "immoral" to launch a computer or mobile phone for $10k. It may be a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. In a free society you should be able to offer any adult of sound mind, anything, at any price. It's up to them if they choose to accept it. It's called freedom.

What is immoral is the initiation of force. For example forcing someone to sell at a low price, or forcing someone to buy something they wouldn't otherwise want to buy.

Libertarian regards,

Steve

What do you say about doctors or practitioners (like back treatments) who take very high prices like in excess of $100 US an hour and sometimes MUCH more?
These things i think sometimes ARE essential and life determining needs.

And similarly, what do you say about these doctors/practitioners charging the same fee for lateness, ie if a patient comes late, that the doctor takes the same amount but only provides a short treatment for the duration of the time, OR adds charge per minute to make up the required time for that treatment OR cancels the whole treatment on grounds it is too late to start, but still charges in full because of his allotted time?

I agree medical issues of life and death are far more complex. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a chess program!

Steve

I was only taking the opportunity to ask you if you know about this, too.
You say it is "far more complex", meaning that's ok and moral?

And even this:
I once had 2 inexpensive violins sent to a violin maker/repairer/restorer, for some adjustments, to be sent back to me before i was to leave the USA to go back home.

In the end he had it ready, too late to make it for the reasonably priced shipping rate, and i had agreed to pay the more expensive rate so that i should still receive it before i leave.

He THOUGHT he would catch the time but missed it and i never knew beforehand but he had to travel about 45 minutes x2 to get it to a post office further away.

He charged his same enormous fee for his travel time, a few hundred dollars, which _I_ had thought was only his fee for his one-in-the-world patent in making a cheap violin sound great.

If sound like you were "fiddled" (sorry - too good a pun to pass)!!

In all seriousness, he should have absorbed the cost of the extra shipping since it was his fault he didn't finish on time. He's a poor, and I would say immoral, businessman. I assume you won't do business with him again. Effectively he renaigned on his contract, which was, "you pay me xxx and I'll give you a fantastically sounding violin". This has nothing to do with the morality of offering a chess program at $90. If you pay the fee you'll get what is advertised.

Steve

[S.Taylor]

Thanks!!!!
(I'll let you put the thread back to topic now!)