[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 54 KB, 500x500, trtr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677304 No.2677304 [Reply] [Original]

ITT: Books that everyone should read at least once

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5089122/the_road_to_reality_-_Roger_Penrose

>> No.2677320
File: 52 KB, 500x500, abhot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677320

Obligatory

Audiobook:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3967607/%5BAudiobook%5D_Stephen_Hawking_-__Brief_History_of_Time_and
_The_Uni

PDF:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4837699/Stephen_Hawking_-_A_Brief_History_Of_Time.pdf

>> No.2677335
File: 79 KB, 348x546, Pmdsgdbhxdfgb2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677335

>> No.2677343
File: 13 KB, 300x207, cos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677343

Cosmos by Carl Sagain

the actual video is here:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5055212/Cosmos_-_Carl_Sagan__%28Complete_Edition%29
but for those with slower connections or who prefer to read, the ebook is:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5994344/Cosmos_-_Carl_Sagan_%5Bebook%5D..

>> No.2677351
File: 22 KB, 300x300, 51m3b70U9IL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677351

>> No.2677361
File: 33 KB, 500x500, rr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677361

I can't find a torrent for this, but it's great. Buy it if you can.

>> No.2677367

>>2677335


Torrent that shit up and I'd be willing to read it.

>> No.2677379

>>2677367
this looks like it:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5964880/Isaac_Newton__Philosophiae_naturalis_principia_mathematica_C
OMPL

I own a physical copy though, so I haven't torrented it. Sorry.

>> No.2677382

Which is more ethical? Stealing books from a library, or torrenting the books? Hmm...

>> No.2677388

>>2677382
torrenting, infinitely more so.

>> No.2677389

>>2677382


It's not wrong at all to download books that are intended for education. Stealing a book from a library is totally retarded however, and of course wrong.

>> No.2677394

>>2677388
But torrenting uses technology, so it's killing nature.

>> No.2677400

>>2677394
humans are part of nature
technology is an appendix of humanity
therefore technology is a part of nature, and its destruction of wildlife is natural selection.

>> No.2677402

>>2677382
Well, stealing it from a library would still give the author money. But it's worse. Because you make the library lose real money, whereas with torrenting you only make the author lose "opportunity costs" or potential money. I guess neither are strictly "ethical," but if you have to choose one, torrent.

>> No.2677417

>>2677402
piracy is only stealing in the way taking a photograph is kidnapping.

>> No.2677426
File: 186 KB, 825x820, piracy-vs-theft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677426

>>2677417

>> No.2677434

>>2677382
Torrenting software is the same thing as not buying it. Stealing a book is stealing.

>> No.2677435

Authors are meant to be paid for writing books.
Authors are not meant to be paid for other people copying books.
What is not to understand?

>> No.2677451
File: 48 KB, 303x425, depp-johnny-fear-and-loathing-in-las-vegas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677451

This was actually required reading (but no test q's) for my pharmacology class. Go figure.

>> No.2677515

>>2677435


Well, I'm sure if any of these great writers would prefer the idea of more people reading them because they're able to download them for free. At least, that's how I like to think of these people anyway.

>> No.2677575

when I finish school and have a real paying job > minimum wage, I'll pay for the shit I use.
But until then no moral fag will ever make me feel bad about stealing. or piracy don't care what you call it.

>> No.2677585

>>2677575
Piracy and stealing are different things and shouldn't be equated with each other.

>> No.2677626

Gotta love the kids that think if it doesn't fall under the black & white definition of stealing, they aren't doing anything wrong.

I just hope one of them invents the cure for cancer, and some big corporation fucks them out of it. Cause, you know, copyright laws are for fascists, maaaaan.

>> No.2677639

>>2677626

We know it's stealing, but we don't give a fuck.

>> No.2677647

>>2677626
0/10

>> No.2677700

>>2677515

I'm sure that they're thrilled that a kid with enough money to have a computer and broadband is experiencing the joy of their book that they were too cheap to pay $15 for.

>>2677575

Wow. Just... wow. Because you have yet to develop skills that are actually valuable in the job market, that's everyone else's fault?
Most of these men would probably kick both of you in the balls. And yes, that includes Stephen Hawking. He would regain his ability to walk momentarily, just to kick you in your outrageously arrogant balls.

>> No.2677709

>>2677647

You need to go back to /b/

>> No.2677725

>>2677709
Why should you pay a third party for copying files? They are your files, your property. Your God-given rights to do whatever you want.

>> No.2677729

>>2677700

But what if I live in the third world and libraries are shit and importing books is expensive?

>> No.2677746

>>2677700
lol you think I'm arrogant? I can't even afford to pay tuition + rent with minimum wage.
And stop saying you know what those 2 guys would do. You're not them faggot.

>> No.2677760

>>2677700
I have around 1200 ebooks. If I paid $5 for each of them I would have spent $6000.
If I made a cure for cancer, I'm pretty sure things more important than profits would be on my mind. I hope that you don't seriously think like you imply that you do.

>> No.2677788

>>2677626
>>2677700
>implying morals

>>2677729
hey ,colonel, don't you have a megaupload of /sci/ books? And isn't this a book-oriented thread?

>> No.2677802

>>2677788
OP here, I'm not sure about Col. but bib.tiera.ru/static has what must be every textbook in existence.

>> No.2677822

>>2677788
this guy here, found the link
www.megaupload.com/?d=KF10XU5Z&setlang=en

>> No.2677827

>>2677725

You claim a "God-given right", and if that isn't laughable enough, the "right" is that you can disregard copyright law intended to protect people who work hard to create things.

That much stupid should not be in one sentence.

>>2677746

And all you do is restate the same point: you are not valuable to an employer, so you should get shit for free.

>>2677760

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Sorry, had to get that out. It's just utterly hilarious that you attack my train of thought when A) You apparently don't understand the point of analogies, and B) Your method of thought is "This large amount of property would have cost me a large amount of money to acquire, so it's justifiable that I broke the law to get it."

>> No.2677856

>>2677788

>implying morals

Nah, just trolling the kids who are trying pitifully to justify themselves. If you notice, I didn't give shit to the dude who clearly stated he knew it was stealing and didn't care.

But it's nice to know even this board is just another /b/ now...

>> No.2677890

>>2677827
Don't you see that the people who are relying on copyright for protection are retards? It offers no protection and has no moral ground. If they are not making profit they should change their business model instead of whining endlessly.

>> No.2677902

>>2677729

I'm pretty sure if you live in the third-world, you have much more pressing matters than downloading masses of ebooks.

>> No.2677908

>>2677827
The authors of the books would probably see around 3% of the profits from those sales, while the ebook publishers who can create infinite copies free make massive profits. It's justifiable I broke the law to avoid giving unfeasibly large amounts of money to people who don't deserve it. You apparently don't understand analogies yourself, as they are supposed to be accurate representations of the situation and if your argument hinges on me not analyzing it, it's not a good argument.
Given that any irrational number will contain an every possible chain of digits, including every book, every piece of software, and every image possible. Prime numbers that violate the law by becoming programs when compiled have already been found. Yet, at the same time, writing <span class="math">\pi[/spoiler] isn't against the law, and writing the prime is still fine.

>> No.2677909

>>2677890

Perhaps the moral grounds that you worked hard to create something and now your reward is zero because everyone can get your work for free.

But, please, explain how an author changes their business model?

>> No.2677910

>>2677902

Depends on what level of third world ness

>> No.2677921

>>2677909
> your reward is zero because everyone can get your work for free
> fullretard.jpg
Nobody can get it before you have sold it the first time.

>> No.2677927

>>2677909
perhaps a system in which people have to pawn their creativity is the problem, and not the fact that some people don't follow the unenforced rules?

>> No.2677936

>>2677908

Firstly, I'd love to know what your sources are for the percentage of money authors make off ebooks. Unless, of course, you're just pulling numbers out of your ass.

How was my analogy not accurate? You work hard on a great achievement, and receive no credit or reward for it because it is reproduced by someone else for their own gain. Notice I never said anything about you making money off of it. You simply did more assuming than analyzing.

But I guess I can't expect that much intelligence from you, what with you living in the third-world with your shitty libraries.

>> No.2677933

was kinda hoping for more book links :/

>> No.2677937

>>2677933
me too. I can't think of any

>> No.2677961

>>2677921

Or, you know, someone who works for the publishing company goes home with a copy.
Or your editor decides he likes it.
Or the publishing company just decides to cut you out of the deal.

Seriously, is /b/ down or is this the actual level of intelligence that you typically find on this board?

>> No.2677965

>>2677909
In the old days, people would tell stories to massive audiences. If the storyteller was good, other people would tell his story to others, and it would spread, without the original teller getting any credit. However, people would learn life lessons, therefore the storyteller made the world a little better.
There was no money asked, yet there were plenty of moral groundings. Your point is invalid good sir.

>> No.2677972

>>2677927

Soooo... everything should be free instead of people "pawning their creativity"?

>> No.2677973

>>2677961
Why would you give your own property to someone else for free, and then complain about it getting stolen?

>> No.2677975

>>2677936
They were misremembered, the actual figure is between 10 and 20 percent, and 3% is the amount that the publisher actually spends.:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Ebook-Royalties---How-Much-Money-Do-Authors-Get-From-Their-Ebooks?&id=
3456531
with 80-90 being given to a company that massively inflates prices.

Your analogy wasn't accurate because you compares a situation in which you would profit from work but where the profit is reduced to a situation in which you would profit from work but where the profit is reduced, and yet when I pointed out a flaw in the analogy your response amounted to "no it doesn't mean that it means something else". It's ambiguous, and inaccurate. I don't understand why you would worry about a corporation producing a cure for cancer that you created. if I were doing something genuinely useful, like curing illness or writing an educational book, profit wouldn't matter to me.

>> No.2677985

>>2677965

You clearly have absolutely no idea what the point of a village storyteller was.

>> No.2677987

>>2677985
to profit and make people tell you how good you are?

>> No.2677990

>>2677827
I never said I deserved anything. Its a matter of fact statement. It's what I'm going to do.
Why pay for my books when I'm practically starving?
> inb4 just don't read books faggot

>> No.2677998

>>2677975
I would prefer a non-corporation produce and market the cancer cure, mainly because we would see massive corruption, namely in pricing, in such a situation of a large corporation marketing this. Think about how the gas companies milk us for money right now because of how much we need gas.

>> No.2678000

>>2677975

Wow. I actually CLEARLY STATED that I was talking about more than money, and you still do not understand that.

It's so cute how every kid downloading shit off the internet assures you that he is of the utmost morality, and if it was his work he would be happy to give it away because apparently he has all the money he will ever need already, but yet he can't afford a book.

>> No.2678014

>>2677998
>implying if information is in the public domain any one company will be able to hold a monopoly on it
How do you plan on making medicine unless you have a factory?

>> No.2678028

>>2677975

Do 5 minutes of fucking research and you'll find out that usually the Ebook companies are giving authors a better deal than the publishing houses.

>> No.2678029

>>2678000
>money hurr
if you would like to actually rebut my argument, I'll give you a response.

>> No.2678036

>>2678014
By taking over private factories and build new ones. Initially demand would set the price unnaturally high on a free market.

>> No.2678040

>>2677990

Just stop eating? Two birds with one stone.

But, I guess you're right. I just wish there was some establishment that stockpiled loads of books that anyone could read.... We can only wish, I suppose..

>> No.2678046

>>2678040
One institution like that is the Internet.

>> No.2678048

>>2678029

Which argument? The one stemming from your inability to comprehend what you read, or the one about how you never want to get paid for your work (which I believe I pretty much destroyed).

>> No.2678062

>>2678048
the one that I made in my post, which you promptly ignored and started again

I don't care about the profits made from helping people because I'm not narrow minded enough to see things like that in terms of profitability. Even if I knew I could make money from a cure, or a book, I would still release it for free, because I understand that for a person in my position the cost would be prohibitive.

>> No.2678064

We get it for free. And you can't stop it, the government can't stop it, and the writer can't stop it. That's what I call forced morality. Fuck paying for reading material and music.

Seriously though, it's not stealing.

>> No.2678104

>>2678062

So if you developed the cure for cancer, you would be perfectly happy with a company taking it, slapping their name on it, and charging whatever they want?

Oh, I guess you probably own a private factory and lab where you and dozens of other people work day and night for free.

>>2678064

I think "Guy Who Throws Around Terms He Doesn't Know" is what I'll call you.

>> No.2678111

http://www.kickasstorrents.com/black-holes-and-baby-universes-stephen-hawking-h33tspooner-t287881.ht
ml

Hawking - Black holes and baby universes
Audiobook

>> No.2678118
File: 67 KB, 286x360, 1298595643591.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2678118

>>2678104
Your noble morality quest is doomed. You think the legions of new age youth with free access to such materials are going to care about downloading a digital copy of a work? No. No one cares, people will rip it all day and there's nothing you can do about it. Creating a copy of something is not stealing inherently, no matter how much you want to piss and moan about it.

>> No.2678135

>>2678104
If I developed the cure for cancer I would release it in its entirety for commercial purposes under a creative commons license. I hope that you would do the same.
it might be difficult for you to see the implications of doing this so I'll explain:
1. multiple medical companies obtain cure
2. demand for cure is extremely high
3. companies manufacture cure, initially charging a high amount
4. they undercut each other until they barely profit from selling the cure

>> No.2678161

>>2678118

Noble morality quest? Pissing and moaning? Hardly. I don't give a fuck what you do, my name isn't Carl Sagan. I just like holding the "Stupid Mirror" up to the people who make excuses so that they can feel right.

>> No.2678172

>>2678161
>Feels right

Ya, it does. That's the beauty of relativistic morality.

>> No.2678176

>>2678161
for supposedly being right you got told quite a lot
zero points

>> No.2678186
File: 84 KB, 277x400, godel escher bach.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2678186

Can we get this thread back on track?

>> No.2678217

>>2678135

Too bad you would need a patent for a cancer cure, not a copyright.

It's so funny how you pick the least important part of the analogy and try to pick it apart, since you can't make any other argument. It doesn't matter if it's cancer or a novel or an everlasting lightbulb, the point is that you worked hard on something and will get no credit or reward.

>> No.2678226

>>2678176

Oooo. I got "told".

Seriously, didn't I already tell you to go back to /b/?

>> No.2678239
File: 24 KB, 520x390, samsam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2678239

>>2678217

Ya! that nobel prize money would be wasted on you.

>implying you wouldn't be world famous
>Implying you wouldn't have tons of research facilities dying to pay you top dollar to be involved with them
>implying you wouldn't win a nobel prize and world recognition
>Implying he wouldn't get some sort of royalties anyway

You sure are retarded.

>> No.2678242

>>2678172

Is that what the kids call "being full of shit" these days?

>> No.2678247

>>2678186
I started this book in HS but I was too stupid to comprehend it. Now that I finished a math degree and have done lots of logic problems I'm going to go back to it and give it a shot

Given how long it is.... I think it's going to take me a year to finish it.

>> No.2678270

>>2678242
>Implying the same things make people feel good, justified, etc

Are religious or are you retarded? Is it hard to understand there is no objective morality? Probably just a bored troll. You're not trying very hard anymore.

>> No.2678287

>>2678239

Your stupidity is incomprehensible. Did I literally not just say that the eventual fruits of your labor did not matter to the overall point?

And without laws protecting the creator of something, someone he works with could just steal the credit anyway.

And, considering how Nobel Prizes have been going for a while now, I'd say it's a crapshoot if he even wins that.

>> No.2678299

>>2678287
0/10

come back with better material if you want to continue

>> No.2679615

>>2678217
if I worked hard on something I wouldn't then release it in a format stupidly easy to copy. Or rely on peoples' morality for getting profits from it. Or, in fact, rely on it for credit or reward at all, because most books don't sell enough to even turn a profit because nobody wants to read them. If I wanted to write an educational book then all I would want is the name of it on my CV, and nothing else.

>> No.2679640

any deontological morality with a reasonable definition of property rights must exclude intellectual property, fuckers.

libertarianism