>>Are you stupid? The DOS shell does not run lots of things that require going into DOS Mode. I thought that every 7th grader knew that. Wow. Are you trying to tell me you ran BeOS from a DOS shell? Quiet, Pinnochio
you call me stupid then tell me BeOS runs from windows? if you are using windows ME and can't boot BeOS personal edition, buy the real one and stop whining or uninstall ME. i'm not stupid. far from it i haven't slept in 28 hours and dont care to think about that kind of stuff. my point was that direct DOS access is no longer possible and other things can still run in a DOS box that were designed for DOS.
>>A DOS shell will not work for ANY program that needs to modify system settings, because to utilize autoexec.bat or config.sys you need to reboot OR exit into DOS Mode.
just type "c:\autoexec.bat" at the DOS windows prompt you retard. it will run anything in the autoexec.bat that would be run automatically when you boot into DOS. call me stupid and then go on about how you can't run autoexec.bat..... its a batch file for crying out loud if you want it to run just run it!
>>And the only boot disks that will work with it are the 'special' boot disks that it makes for itself, which do not have a way of going into DOS. So next time you open your mouth about running programs, insert your foot instead of a dumbass remark.
as i just stated you dont need to go directly into DOS for anything. i guess if some apps are broken in the DOS bo for some reason and you just HAVE to use them then stick to win98. but dont call me a dumbass and ramble about things you don't know everything about it makes you look really stupid.
how many times have you even used DOS anyways? can you count them on one hand? i used DOS as my main OS back in the day and i never found a program that i couldn't run. and i've used most of them in a DOS box too. just try that neat little trick of running the autoexec.bat manually and you should be able to run all that shit too.
the whole point of phasing out the plain DOS prompt is so that windows retards like you will realize it's time to start using win32 GUI apps and phase out your own DOS applications before they're totally broken when DOS is totally phased out of the codebase. not so you can whine about how things are broken when they really arent yet.
money has nothing to do with the time. it kind of transcends the money to the point that is, who has a right to use it. if there is no copyright and a large corporation tries to profit from it anyways they can't sue you for copying any or all of it, because it's not their right anymore. as it stands mostly corporations are making money off of copyright anyways. if the copyrights expired after 14 years, then it would become public domain and anybody could copy it if they want, legally.
i have read quite a few posts about people complaining about how their old DOS games won't work anymore. not true. i have used millenium and it is similar to windows 2000 in the sense that you cannot go into DOS directly and you can't boot into it. you may, however use the DOS box(i think it's just an emulated DOS in some protected part of memory) to use old DOS programs. for all intents and purposes it will run programs exactly the same as "normal DOS". the real gripe is how it'll be harder to fix problems in ME that occur at startup, and not be able to go directly into DOS to try and fix it. boohoo. yay microsoft. BTW it does boot faster(my friend uses it for his main OS), and direct X 8 kicks ass
>>I don't see how 14 years can be reasonable, lets say I just finish my book this year and it sells pretty badly. After 15 more years of writing, one of my books breaks through to the mainstream and there's suddenly a large community of people willing to pay to read my old stuff which is suddenly considered gold
Perfectly reasonable. I guess it would just be tough luck that it didn't sell earlier. The whole point of the 14 years was so "popular culture" type items wouldn't be eternally owned by corporations and people. As many have said before, you aren't magically "supposed to" make money off of ideas or stuff you've written. That's why copyright was made to begin with. It's just a concept, not a physical thing. The short limit is to make sure it WILL enter public domain so anybody can use it.
i had an argument with a friend about this. although what napster is doing(in knowingly allowing people to trade copyrighted music on their system) is very wrong morally, I can see no real legal problems. they are not infringing copyright themselves, only making it easy for millions of other people to. IANAL but i dont think that it is illegal to say stuff like "we know they're pirating music" even though they are. i guess they might be seen as accomplices of some sort, but its not exactly murder. i guess the main thing that pissed me off was when my friend called me up when the injunction was served saying "HAHAHA NAPSTER LOST". took me over an hour to explain the difference between an injunction and a verdict because he wouldn't believe me. oh well
a damn funny thing just occurred to me. people in other comments have been quoting IE5 as having about 80-85% of the market share. so. if EVERYBODY said they used IE they might give it a monopoly status(90% marketshare if i remember right, at least according to monopoly laws). having an operating system monopoly AND a browser monopoly will just make it that much more uncomfortable for them. maybe even another anti-trust trial(concerning the browser) so we could stick it to them that much more.
Re:A strange thought...
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
that's actually not a bad idea, but it wouldn't work on a large scale. it'd be funny to play around with for a few people i guess but it probably wouldn't catch on any further than that. i think i had an idea like this once(also in the hour just before i pass out from lack of sleep). kind of makes you wonder how many "features" in software or computers in general were developed by somebody who was about to zonk out from over-caffination riding over pure exhaustion
just use a canadian proxy and you're good to go(assuming they have a rock solid way of determining your IP is canadian). their server will say "oh look, canadian, ok good"
ski masks have more purpose than for disguising people while robbing banks. the way he words it makes it sound like we are all robbing banks at all times. i can use a ski mask to keep my face warm, or i can wear it to look cool and play friday the thirteenth with my friends(if i were younger), the possibilities are endless. it bugs me how the "big IP people" always shrug off analogies like this then make their own that are even less accurate. what motivates individuals inside a company to think up stupid shit like this...
Thats just Jon Katz I guess. It may be copyrighted material but its fair use(this is an editorial site, Microsoft would be stupid to sue them over it and try to prove its not fair use, they'd probably lose). I think slashdot should leave em right where they are. Jon Katz used other people copyrighted work(according to the slashdot legal mumbojumbo) and could probably be sued over it. Of course nobody here is so tightassed to actually do that(at least i dont think they are)
Fair use, "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. ", etc. Slashdot has legal stuff to say too, if Microsoft didn't bother to read it it's their own fault/problem/stupidity.
Slashdot never agreed to the EULA, whoever posted the code did(or maybe didn't at all, just extracted the files). Microsoft doesn't have a legal leg to stand on as far as I can see. They're just trying to strongarm slashdot, something they're suddenly not very good at anymore.
I just posted a rant about not removing posts but another thought occured to me. Slashdot should remember to only be a conduit. The moment they remove offensive posts they become liable for policing the rest of em(at least it would seem lately). Of course I'm not a lawyer but it would be a bad thing considering the "controversial" topics usually posted here. I'm getting really sick of all the companies hiding behind the DMCA and the day I turn 18 is the day I call my congressman and tell him how much i think it stinks. That is of course assuming it isn't overturned before then.
Circumventing the EULA is not illegal. It has no copy protection, it is a simple archive and can be opened in almost any program that handles that sort of file(iw winzip). Just because doing so is against what the EULA says, you must remember that the EULA was never agreed to when somebody decides to simply open it in winzip.
Also, simply linking to sites that contain unpacked versions that don't have the EULA on it is not illegal, or at least isn't yet(and hopefully never will be). The MPAA tried to get the courts to block 2600 from linking to DeCSS sites(and DeCSS has already been deemed illegal to have in your possesion). Why should slashdot stop linking to sites that contain microsofts implementation of the kerberos protocol when its not even illegal to have to begin with. There is no law saying a EULA must be present when you look at something from a company, even if a company wants it to be that way. I say it's time for Microsoft to realize that their days of blind bullying are over. Don't take down any posts concerning that story.
Not to mention the fact that "posts are the property of the person who posted them" to begin with. Stupid lawyers
You'll find that Metallica owns the label they are under. There is no middle man they're pulling all the profits, which may explain why they're fighting so hard.
when you can simply ignore it and continue using the REAL kerberos protocol(if you wish). Microsoft is trying to be sneaky by saying "maybe if we make it seem like we don't want people to use this they will use it even more." Look through it and realize that apps written utilizing this protocol will only tell Microsoft that their little ploy worked. If it keels over and dies they might realize "hah maybe we should just stick to the REAL protocols." I'm not an expert in the way all that stuff works but it seems fairly obvious to me what they're trying to do
Ever stop to think that maybe Linux zealots make up the larger part of their userbase? Look at the banners on the top of your screen while you read this. There's a good chance its an ad for something to do with Linux. If advertising is targetted, what does that tell you about what the average reader of slashdot is.....
Maybe a developer was trying to circumvent his bosses decision to not open source the drivers by including GPLed code and notifying the developer in hopes he'd say "hey! open source it now, thats how the GPL works," but instead they just politely asked to remove the code.
As I understand it, fair use is something along the lines of "using part of a copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism, discussion, or parody" something like that. I fail to see how you can copy ANY part of a copyrighted work just to compile it into your own code. Thats not fair use, you're not criticising the code or making a parody of it you're just cutting and pasting it into something else to be used for the exact same purpose.
>>Can I look at the GPL'd code and work out the algorithms and write my new code based on that?
I would imagine so, unless amazon.com owns a patent for the algorithm already, hehehehe
A comapny is very different from individuals, if fact I'm willing to bet that many of the developers at NVidia would want to open source the drivers(maybe even "accidentally" included the code in hopes it would be pried open, who knows.) But my point is that a company will ALWAYS go where the money is(or at least where it thinks the money is), devoid of emotion and or caring. It's like a dumb animal. When sh*t like this happens the individual developer needs to get inside the companies proverbial head and do what will provoke a response. A slap on the wrist to a "stimulus response" entity means that they will do it again and again(as long as there's money in it) until a concrete block is set up making it very clear that what they did is not an acceptable behavior. I say sue them for as much as they're worth(even though I like their hardware) because there's no other way companies will get the idea that there is no room for negotiation, much the same way they try to do with us. Of course we're not full of hot air like they are when they do it. The example that needs to be set is being honest and not suing for namby pamby.
Not to rain in on your parade(or be rude doing so), but what does the FSF have to do with it? Perhaps the GPL license itself should be amended to basically say "if you violate the GPL by including GPLed code in a binary only format, the whole module must be opened and put under the GPL license also, or the GPLed code removed and the original author compensated for however much profit was gained by using his code. I can see a few problems with my idea but they could probably be worked out. They provide an incentive for companies who want to use GPLed code to open their source also or not even bother(and it might even be enough deterrent to make developers check before they "accidentally" use GPL code. How many people release open source code under a non-GPL license anyways? I know people do but it couldn't be many. Whoever used the code by "accident" must've been on a super-caffine buzz or something.) In addition, it would almost be like a "licensing virus" automatically spreading GPL into any program that accidentally uses GPLed code(much like people who unknowingly run a virus). Wouldn't it be funny as hell if Microsoft accidentally used GPLed code in windows and were forced to open source the whole damn thing. I can see the news stories... Judge Jackson saying "I'm really going to enjoy doing this. Open it up or scrap it, no, actually open source it, period."
>>What the hell are you talking about. If metallica was to conform to the "taste" that all you so called "metalheads" want, they would not be where they are at today..You fag heads are >>always sayin, "they should go back to their old stuff", but dont realize, they've been there and done that. why would you want to do the same thing for 20 yrs? I think that they sound >>better now than they did when Kill em'All came out. S&M is a musicians dream, but you wouldnt know about that, since you probably listen to boy bands, and think that's music. >>Just to propose the old cliche, if you dont like it, dont buy it, but then again, metallica doesnt need your 2 cents. So go ahead and D/L method man or something you fucking poser!!! Like I said in my post, I will not be buying any new metallica albums because I do not like them. Your attempts to call me names and stereotype me are nothing short of pathetic. As for your "been there and done that" argument all i have to say is "if its not broken dont fix it". They're a bunch of old losers now. Their fans are the people who put them where they are and as corny as it may sound, they owe us. New Metallica(load and reload) are pathetic by ANY standard not just compared to their old work, IMHO. Garage Inc and S&M weren't as bad but in case you haven't noticed they haven't created much of anything new(2 new songs on S&M). So I reiterate, they're just rehashing, remixing, and basically mangling any good material they ever created, which leads me to believe that their original creative talent has run dry. If you think I'm biased by their age I'll have you know that PLENTY of older people in bands still have my respect(Dave Mustaine, his newer stuff is far superior to Metallica albums of the same time. His older stuff is really good too. Ozzy always has been and will continue to be one of my favorite performers of all time. Jimmy Paige still plays a killer guitar. Metallica has been going downhill in musical quality since they released the Load album). Nothing haunts me more than to see memories of a great band shattered by stupid little retards with Reload patches running around chanting "gimme fuel give me fire". As my rant has clearly stated, I have lost all respect for Metallica as musical performers, and now with the Napster lawsuit, my respect for them as people. Lars used to seem reasonably intelligent to me before I heard his stupid little quote. As for the quote "Yes we sold out, each and every show." They are just hiding behind the fact that they suck at music writing now and have alienated a large portion of their fan base. They no longer have me for a fan, I will boycott them and encourage other people to do the same. BTW i hate boy bands and you must be a real genius to tell me what I "probably like" without knowing me. Goob Job
Slashdot Mirror
ack, config.sys could be a problem i guess. i've had too many 2-liters of coke tonight.....
>>Are you stupid? The DOS shell does not run lots of things that require going into DOS Mode. I thought that every 7th grader knew that. Wow. Are you trying to tell me you ran BeOS from a DOS shell? Quiet, Pinnochio
you call me stupid then tell me BeOS runs from windows? if you are using windows ME and can't boot BeOS personal edition, buy the real one and stop whining or uninstall ME. i'm not stupid. far from it i haven't slept in 28 hours and dont care to think about that kind of stuff. my point was that direct DOS access is no longer possible and other things can still run in a DOS box that were designed for DOS.
>>A DOS shell will not work for ANY program that needs to modify system settings, because to utilize autoexec.bat or config.sys you need to reboot OR exit into DOS Mode.
just type "c:\autoexec.bat" at the DOS windows prompt you retard. it will run anything in the autoexec.bat that would be run automatically when you boot into DOS. call me stupid and then go on about how you can't run autoexec.bat..... its a batch file for crying out loud if you want it to run just run it!
>>And the only boot disks that will work with it are the 'special' boot disks that it makes for itself, which do not have a way of going into DOS. So next time you open your mouth about running programs, insert your foot instead of a dumbass remark.
as i just stated you dont need to go directly into DOS for anything. i guess if some apps are broken in the DOS bo for some reason and you just HAVE to use them then stick to win98. but dont call me a dumbass and ramble about things you don't know everything about it makes you look really stupid.
how many times have you even used DOS anyways? can you count them on one hand? i used DOS as my main OS back in the day and i never found a program that i couldn't run. and i've used most of them in a DOS box too. just try that neat little trick of running the autoexec.bat manually and you should be able to run all that shit too.
the whole point of phasing out the plain DOS prompt is so that windows retards like you will realize it's time to start using win32 GUI apps and phase out your own DOS applications before they're totally broken when DOS is totally phased out of the codebase. not so you can whine about how things are broken when they really arent yet.
money has nothing to do with the time. it kind of transcends the money to the point that is, who has a right to use it. if there is no copyright and a large corporation tries to profit from it anyways they can't sue you for copying any or all of it, because it's not their right anymore. as it stands mostly corporations are making money off of copyright anyways. if the copyrights expired after 14 years, then it would become public domain and anybody could copy it if they want, legally.
i have read quite a few posts about people complaining about how their old DOS games won't work anymore. not true. i have used millenium and it is similar to windows 2000 in the sense that you cannot go into DOS directly and you can't boot into it. you may, however use the DOS box(i think it's just an emulated DOS in some protected part of memory) to use old DOS programs. for all intents and purposes it will run programs exactly the same as "normal DOS". the real gripe is how it'll be harder to fix problems in ME that occur at startup, and not be able to go directly into DOS to try and fix it. boohoo. yay microsoft. BTW it does boot faster(my friend uses it for his main OS), and direct X 8 kicks ass
>>I don't see how 14 years can be reasonable, lets say I just finish my book this year and it sells pretty badly. After 15 more years of writing, one of my books breaks through to the mainstream and there's suddenly a large community of people willing to pay to read my old stuff which is suddenly considered gold
Perfectly reasonable. I guess it would just be tough luck that it didn't sell earlier. The whole point of the 14 years was so "popular culture" type items wouldn't be eternally owned by corporations and people. As many have said before, you aren't magically "supposed to" make money off of ideas or stuff you've written. That's why copyright was made to begin with. It's just a concept, not a physical thing. The short limit is to make sure it WILL enter public domain so anybody can use it.
i had an argument with a friend about this. although what napster is doing(in knowingly allowing people to trade copyrighted music on their system) is very wrong morally, I can see no real legal problems. they are not infringing copyright themselves, only making it easy for millions of other people to. IANAL but i dont think that it is illegal to say stuff like "we know they're pirating music" even though they are. i guess they might be seen as accomplices of some sort, but its not exactly murder. i guess the main thing that pissed me off was when my friend called me up when the injunction was served saying "HAHAHA NAPSTER LOST". took me over an hour to explain the difference between an injunction and a verdict because he wouldn't believe me. oh well
a damn funny thing just occurred to me. people in other comments have been quoting IE5 as having about 80-85% of the market share. so. if EVERYBODY said they used IE they might give it a monopoly status(90% marketshare if i remember right, at least according to monopoly laws). having an operating system monopoly AND a browser monopoly will just make it that much more uncomfortable for them. maybe even another anti-trust trial(concerning the browser) so we could stick it to them that much more.
that's actually not a bad idea, but it wouldn't work on a large scale. it'd be funny to play around with for a few people i guess but it probably wouldn't catch on any further than that. i think i had an idea like this once(also in the hour just before i pass out from lack of sleep). kind of makes you wonder how many "features" in software or computers in general were developed by somebody who was about to zonk out from over-caffination riding over pure exhaustion
just use a canadian proxy and you're good to go(assuming they have a rock solid way of determining your IP is canadian). their server will say "oh look, canadian, ok good"
ski masks have more purpose than for disguising people while robbing banks. the way he words it makes it sound like we are all robbing banks at all times. i can use a ski mask to keep my face warm, or i can wear it to look cool and play friday the thirteenth with my friends(if i were younger), the possibilities are endless. it bugs me how the "big IP people" always shrug off analogies like this then make their own that are even less accurate. what motivates individuals inside a company to think up stupid shit like this...
Thats just Jon Katz I guess. It may be copyrighted material but its fair use(this is an editorial site, Microsoft would be stupid to sue them over it and try to prove its not fair use, they'd probably lose). I think slashdot should leave em right where they are. Jon Katz used other people copyrighted work(according to the slashdot legal mumbojumbo) and could probably be sued over it. Of course nobody here is so tightassed to actually do that(at least i dont think they are)
Fair use, "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. ", etc. Slashdot has legal stuff to say too, if Microsoft didn't bother to read it it's their own fault/problem/stupidity.
Slashdot never agreed to the EULA, whoever posted the code did(or maybe didn't at all, just extracted the files). Microsoft doesn't have a legal leg to stand on as far as I can see. They're just trying to strongarm slashdot, something they're suddenly not very good at anymore.
I just posted a rant about not removing posts but another thought occured to me. Slashdot should remember to only be a conduit. The moment they remove offensive posts they become liable for policing the rest of em(at least it would seem lately). Of course I'm not a lawyer but it would be a bad thing considering the "controversial" topics usually posted here. I'm getting really sick of all the companies hiding behind the DMCA and the day I turn 18 is the day I call my congressman and tell him how much i think it stinks. That is of course assuming it isn't overturned before then.
Circumventing the EULA is not illegal. It has no copy protection, it is a simple archive and can be opened in almost any program that handles that sort of file(iw winzip). Just because doing so is against what the EULA says, you must remember that the EULA was never agreed to when somebody decides to simply open it in winzip.
Also, simply linking to sites that contain unpacked versions that don't have the EULA on it is not illegal, or at least isn't yet(and hopefully never will be). The MPAA tried to get the courts to block 2600 from linking to DeCSS sites(and DeCSS has already been deemed illegal to have in your possesion). Why should slashdot stop linking to sites that contain microsofts implementation of the kerberos protocol when its not even illegal to have to begin with. There is no law saying a EULA must be present when you look at something from a company, even if a company wants it to be that way. I say it's time for Microsoft to realize that their days of blind bullying are over. Don't take down any posts concerning that story.
Not to mention the fact that "posts are the property of the person who posted them" to begin with. Stupid lawyers
Look up "Creeping Death Records."
You'll find that Metallica owns the label they are under. There is no middle man they're pulling all the profits, which may explain why they're fighting so hard.
this should be modded up.
of course, i have this weird feeling deep down inside my mind that the DMCA won't be with us much longer, at least if it is it will be pared down.
when you can simply ignore it and continue using the REAL kerberos protocol(if you wish). Microsoft is trying to be sneaky by saying "maybe if we make it seem like we don't want people to use this they will use it even more." Look through it and realize that apps written utilizing this protocol will only tell Microsoft that their little ploy worked. If it keels over and dies they might realize "hah maybe we should just stick to the REAL protocols." I'm not an expert in the way all that stuff works but it seems fairly obvious to me what they're trying to do
Ever stop to think that maybe Linux zealots make up the larger part of their userbase? Look at the banners on the top of your screen while you read this. There's a good chance its an ad for something to do with Linux. If advertising is targetted, what does that tell you about what the average reader of slashdot is.....
Maybe a developer was trying to circumvent his bosses decision to not open source the drivers by including GPLed code and notifying the developer in hopes he'd say "hey! open source it now, thats how the GPL works," but instead they just politely asked to remove the code.
>>Can I take 10% of a source file as "fair use"?
As I understand it, fair use is something along the lines of "using part of a copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism, discussion, or parody" something like that. I fail to see how you can copy ANY part of a copyrighted work just to compile it into your own code. Thats not fair use, you're not criticising the code or making a parody of it you're just cutting and pasting it into something else to be used for the exact same purpose.
>>Can I look at the GPL'd code and work out the algorithms and write my new code based on that?
I would imagine so, unless amazon.com owns a patent for the algorithm already, hehehehe
A comapny is very different from individuals, if fact I'm willing to bet that many of the developers at NVidia would want to open source the drivers(maybe even "accidentally" included the code in hopes it would be pried open, who knows.) But my point is that a company will ALWAYS go where the money is(or at least where it thinks the money is), devoid of emotion and or caring. It's like a dumb animal. When sh*t like this happens the individual developer needs to get inside the companies proverbial head and do what will provoke a response. A slap on the wrist to a "stimulus response" entity means that they will do it again and again(as long as there's money in it) until a concrete block is set up making it very clear that what they did is not an acceptable behavior. I say sue them for as much as they're worth(even though I like their hardware) because there's no other way companies will get the idea that there is no room for negotiation, much the same way they try to do with us. Of course we're not full of hot air like they are when they do it. The example that needs to be set is being honest and not suing for namby pamby.
Not to rain in on your parade(or be rude doing so), but what does the FSF have to do with it? Perhaps the GPL license itself should be amended to basically say "if you violate the GPL by including GPLed code in a binary only format, the whole module must be opened and put under the GPL license also, or the GPLed code removed and the original author compensated for however much profit was gained by using his code. I can see a few problems with my idea but they could probably be worked out. They provide an incentive for companies who want to use GPLed code to open their source also or not even bother(and it might even be enough deterrent to make developers check before they "accidentally" use GPL code. How many people release open source code under a non-GPL license anyways? I know people do but it couldn't be many. Whoever used the code by "accident" must've been on a super-caffine buzz or something.) In addition, it would almost be like a "licensing virus" automatically spreading GPL into any program that accidentally uses GPLed code(much like people who unknowingly run a virus). Wouldn't it be funny as hell if Microsoft accidentally used GPLed code in windows and were forced to open source the whole damn thing. I can see the news stories... Judge Jackson saying "I'm really going to enjoy doing this. Open it up or scrap it, no, actually open source it, period."
>>What the hell are you talking about. If metallica was to conform to the "taste" that all you so called "metalheads" want, they would not be where they are at today..You fag heads are >>always sayin, "they should go back to their old stuff", but dont realize, they've been there and done that. why would you want to do the same thing for 20 yrs? I think that they sound >>better now than they did when Kill em'All came out. S&M is a musicians dream, but you wouldnt know about that, since you probably listen to boy bands, and think that's music. >>Just to propose the old cliche, if you dont like it, dont buy it, but then again, metallica doesnt need your 2 cents. So go ahead and D/L method man or something you fucking poser!!! Like I said in my post, I will not be buying any new metallica albums because I do not like them. Your attempts to call me names and stereotype me are nothing short of pathetic. As for your "been there and done that" argument all i have to say is "if its not broken dont fix it". They're a bunch of old losers now. Their fans are the people who put them where they are and as corny as it may sound, they owe us. New Metallica(load and reload) are pathetic by ANY standard not just compared to their old work, IMHO. Garage Inc and S&M weren't as bad but in case you haven't noticed they haven't created much of anything new(2 new songs on S&M). So I reiterate, they're just rehashing, remixing, and basically mangling any good material they ever created, which leads me to believe that their original creative talent has run dry. If you think I'm biased by their age I'll have you know that PLENTY of older people in bands still have my respect(Dave Mustaine, his newer stuff is far superior to Metallica albums of the same time. His older stuff is really good too. Ozzy always has been and will continue to be one of my favorite performers of all time. Jimmy Paige still plays a killer guitar. Metallica has been going downhill in musical quality since they released the Load album). Nothing haunts me more than to see memories of a great band shattered by stupid little retards with Reload patches running around chanting "gimme fuel give me fire". As my rant has clearly stated, I have lost all respect for Metallica as musical performers, and now with the Napster lawsuit, my respect for them as people. Lars used to seem reasonably intelligent to me before I heard his stupid little quote. As for the quote "Yes we sold out, each and every show." They are just hiding behind the fact that they suck at music writing now and have alienated a large portion of their fan base. They no longer have me for a fan, I will boycott them and encourage other people to do the same. BTW i hate boy bands and you must be a real genius to tell me what I "probably like" without knowing me. Goob Job
>> However, are there any guidelines that say how far is too far? The Bill of Rights springs to mind. lol