The Line6 amps/modelers are a step in the right direction. This type of technology is defintely going to replace vintage tube amps eventually.
It's unfortunate that they sound like shit compared to the real thing. I tried out several of their products recently and nothing touched a real tube amp. It still sounds synthetic and digital.
They're getting closer though, another 5 years and they might have something.
I'm suprised I didn't see anybody post "Don't start smoking cigarettes dumbass". That's the biggest regret I carry forward with me from my teenaged years. In fact, it might be the only regret I still carry. It's certainly the only mistake that I'm still significantly effected by.
True, I jumped too quickly on that one. My main point wasn't to discredit his facts so much as his ideas though. It seems that he was implying that amendments are somehow separate and less important than the contents of the original document.
Anyway... for the ignorant. The Constitution itself says nothing about specific rights that cannot be denied. That is all in the Bill of Rights which consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Um, the Bill of rights and all amendments are part of the constitution. See, the original document needed some fixing so they "amended" it. There is no difference between a constitutional amendment and the text of the original document. They are equally binding. They are, in fact, the same thing.
The Constitution just defines our system of government. Things like, how the constitution can be amended... length of terms for the President, senators, etc...
Also, if you like nitpicking, I think you'll find that presidential term limits are the 22nd amendment to the constitution.
Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.
Have you ever been in a room where somebody has sprayed mace? To hell if you wouldn't get out of there as fast as you could. Somebody sprayed some in the hall when I was in high school and we had to evacuate an entire floor of the building. Within a few minutes people in at least 5 classrooms were reacting to it. It's nasty stuff.
When was the last new technology you saw that used PCMCIA? Everything is firewire and USB now. USB 2.0 would be 100x more useful than PCMCIA. PCMCIA is outdated.
(PCMCIA) Is necessary. On my old PB G3 Bronze (still going strong) I use the slot for three different features: firewire, 802.11, SmartMedia adapter for my digital camera.
Um, it has firewire built in, a slot for an 802.11g card, and you can use a USB SmartMedia adapter. Explain to me your definition of necessary.
How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?
Obviously the RIAA member record companies will have to consent and will be recieving royalties for these CD's. They own the songs (and the artists' souls) afterall. If Clear Channel were to try to do this without a contract from the labels, they would certainly be sued. I wouldn't be surpised to see the record companies bail on this deal though. We all know how open minded the major labels are towards creating new products, especially products people actually want. I'm sure they'll find some reason to be afraid of this.
Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
As for the quality of the recordings, they won't be great but they don't need to be. They will not be able to hold a candle to studio recordings or label released live albums. You just can't mix and master a recording in realtime and reach the quality level of a recording that has been mixed and mastered over the course of months. (Maybe this is what the major labels will find to be scared of). However, somebody buying this recording isn't looking for sound quality. They're looking to have a memento of a show they were at. They can play it for their friends and say "I was there". There is already a thriving underground bootleg market in this country for recordings of live shows. Many of these reocordings sound horrible, sometimes made with nothing more than a built in mic on a minidisc player or cassette walkman... People still want them and these will certainly sound better than those.
People have been asking the major labels for this for years and they've never delivered on it. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Yeah, I had a hard time understanding parts of the article myself. Sorry if I came off a bit snappish. I suppose I'm a bit sensitive to this right now because I just found out yesterday that one of my very best friends is moving 1000 miles away for a morning show gig at the end of the month. I'm really going to miss both him and his wife. It's just been impossible for him to land a job since Clear Channel bought up all our local stations. He's had to resort to overnight news on the weekends and waiting tables to get by. It's sad considering how talented he is and how respected he was around town.
I either listent to my MP3's downloaded from the Net, or listen to radio stations broadcasting over Shoutcast through Winamp...
I suspect 50 million other people are doing the same...
I also spend very little time listening to radio these days (car only in fact) but I guarantee there are far more people listening to good old fashioned FM radio right now than internet streams. Plus half the people listening to internet streams are probably listening to streams of traditional FM stations.
It might not be important to you but it's very important. Also, one thing that most internet radio is really bad for is providing the type of content that an old fashioned DJ used to provide. Most of the streams I've found are either all talk or 0 talk, no announcing songs, jokes, giving background info on an artist, etc. I suppose that's one of the reasons that I just listen to.mp3's directly off my harddrive all day.
Re:The long, slow, death of the DJ.
on
Digital Celebrities
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don't know what the norm was for sure I suppose. What I do know is that my buddy who was on the morning show for one of the bigger local radio stations here used to do all of his interviews live when they were owned by Nationwide Insurance. They were over the phone most of the time of course but they were on the air live. After they were purchased by JCorp, he was still doing most of them but not all of them live. After they were purchased by ClearChannel, I don't think any of them were live anymore though I could be wrong.
It sucks too because he was an amazing interviewer who did stuff that you just won't here in a canned, pre-recorded interview. He has a great tape of himself doing his super exagerated Chubby Checker impersonation to Chubby Checker to get his opinion. Ok, it sounds dorky but it was hilarious, trust me. You just don't get creative stuff like that when it has to be general purpose.
So... what's the BFD as long as he doesn't soound like a Speak N Spell?
If you work in the industry, the BFD is that one guy just did your job in 20 different cities. It sucks for you because the number of available jobs has now shrunk to nothing. It sucks for the public because now they're all getting the same canned crap. There's one thing for dinner and if you don't like it, tough luck. It sucks for the public because there are fewer local on-air personalities that truly understand the experience of being a New Yorker, Clevelander, Los... um... Angeleser... um... whatever.
It's great for Clear Channel though because they just eliminated 19 paychecks. It looks great on the books and looks great to the stockholders. It's a shame that over the last 50 years it's destroyed one hell of a brilliant creative medium.
The long, slow, death of the DJ.
on
Digital Celebrities
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The on-air personality is inches away from being a thing of the past. I have a lot of friends that work in radio. Most of them have had the stations they work for bought by clear channel. Most of my friends that are still on-air personalities (many are unemployeed these days) are being pumped out to at least 3 stations with little tweaks being done to the audio to make it sound like they are local. Frequently celebrity interviews are mocked up from a stock tape of the celebrity answering questions with the DJ's voice dubbed between even.
I keep hoping that eventually people will notice how sterile, packaged and crappy it is and that independent stations will be able to compete by way of superior programming. However, apparently people don't give a rats ass. They don't even notice how shitty radio is these days.
This clearly doesn't open up any new security holes that weren't already there.
Its worse use would be making cracking a box a little more convienient by allowing the hacker to run commands faster. It's best use would be making administering your site a little more convienient if you aren't allowed shell access. There's nothing to get up in arms about.
Isn't slashdot supposed to be an audience that understands both the legitimate and illegitimate uses of technologies. Every tool is a weapon if ya hold it right. Right?
Having not watched the game (wo gives a shit about football?)
Well, according to this site about 43% of the people watching the superbowl are women and there will be about 40 million women watching. If we do some math that puts the total viewers to about 92 million people. Assuming that most of those people are US citizens and assuming a US population of about 270 million, I'd say about 1 out of every 3 americans that you know give a shit.
I can't comment on how they all appreared, but I can say this: it's not that Shania did and Sting didn't lip synced, it's just that they were better at it than Shania was.
You just said you didn't watch the game. Until you've watched a recording, you can't say shit. Sting and No Doubt weren't lip syncing. They were actually talking to the crowd a bit, their dynamics were influenced by how they held the mic, moved around, etc... In fact, they were both fairly mediocre performances. Message in a bottle felt particularly rough and under-rehearsed. Gwen Stefani and Sting weren't really working well together on harmonies and such. It was a tolerable performance but not pre-recorded.
Almost every time you have a performance at a live event like that it's lip synched, just to be sure that nothing goes wrong.
Not true. Real musicians don't lip sync. They don't need to. They know how to handle the little mistakes that happen when you perform live.
Anybody else notice how badly Shania Twain lip synced during the halftime show? It's fucking pathetic. If you don't have the balls to sing, at least practice faking it in front of a mirror or something.
I'm glad No Doubt and Sting had the curtesy to actually perform. I think lip syncing is totally cheating the audience. Then again, I suppose people that listen to crap like Brittany Spears, NSync, and Shania Twain probably deserve to be taken advantage of to a certain degree.
Of course, they've probably already ripped his entire database using http connections from a quick little perl script. (At least I would have before letting my lawyers send a cease and desist.)
Then again, musicians could just self-publish their work and retain their copyright fromt he beginning.
Is this idea naive? Yes. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Could it ever work? Probably not, but I'm not quite so jaded as to give up hope.
There are a handful of artists whom have been very successful in retaining their copyrights and publishing themselves. It certainly can be done. I think Ani Defranco is a good example if I'm not mistaken.
It's tough though. You're not going to get any radio airplay on 95% of radio stations because you won't have the money to pay the "Independent Promoters". You'll have a hard time getting your CD's sold in record stores nationally. There are huge hurdles to jump and it's a very unfair marketplace as an independent artist. It's not impossible to succeed there though.
Ahh to only be an author as opposed to a musician. While the music industry certainly pulls in more revenue than the publishing industry, the publishing industry treats its authors much more fairly.
In the music industry, you typically do have to sign over all ownership of your songs and several albums worth of songs that you haven't even written yet. Sure you can turn them down but there's typically 100 other bands standing in line behind you that they'll gladly sign instead.
Instead, does anyone who actually makes a living (or some part of one) from creating copyrighted content think that this is a GOOD thing?
I make a portion of my living creating, selling, and performing copyrighted works. At one point it was as much as 75% of my income though now it's down to 5% or less temporarily. By this summer, it should be back up to 25% or so.
I think this judgement is a bad thing. Right now I would benefit much more from being able to pull more heavily on past works than I gain from having my work protected 75 years after I'm dead and gone. Then again, the last two copyright extensions weren't passed for me, a signer/songwriter. They were passed for Disney, Time Warner, Sony, and the likes. There are a handful of old Louis Armstrong and Louis Jordan tunes that I would LOVE to record new versions of. They're ripe for being redone with a modern spin. I can't afford to license anything though. Hell, right now I'm having a hard enough time paying for studio time and decent equipment. Of course, I still get to perform those works live due to the agreements that clubs have with ASCAP and such. I just can't record them and sell the recordings.
The current landscape for musicians (at least in my part of the country) is ugly. A lot of it is cultural and has nothing to do with copyright. Movies are just a much more popular form of entertainment than live music these days. I guarantee 100x more people see a movie on any given night in my city than see a live band - probably 1000x. So, as a musician, you do some recording and turn to the Internet as a source of revenue except the record labels are locking it down to where it's difficult to get any more exposure there than you can Clear Channel dominated radio. MP3.com's top 40 lists are dominated by signed acts now. CARP has suppressed most independent webcasting. It's a rough market to be in which is why I'm working a programming job, slacking off typing this instead of sitting somewhere writing music or performing. I feel comfortable blaming a significant portion of that on current copyright laws (Especially if you credit restrictive copyrights with part of the stagnation and lack of creativity that the established music industry is exhibiting). But it's much more than just copyright. There are 1000 other issues contributing to the difficulties associated with making a living as a musician these days.
Part of being a good consultant or designer is managing your customer's expectations and steering them in the right direction. They've hired you because they know they aren't capable of doing what you do. You will always have to make some little concessions but if you pick your battles and present sensable arguments, you'll make very few.
If somebody really earnestly demands that you create a piece of shit site, the contract probably isn't worth it anyhow. What's more valuable, a week's pay or your reputation?
The hard part is actually getting enough people to understand the issues and join the boycott. It's not simple, you can't tell people they're slaughtering cute little puppies for fur or something. You have to go into a huge explaination of the issues at the end of which, most people's response is "So what?".
I personally no longer purchase new CD's unless I'm buying them directly from an unsigned artist. I go to the used record store if I want something published by a label. It might take a little while for something specific to show up but I always have a list of 20-30 CD's that I want to buy at a given time anyhow. I would certainly participate in an official boycott and do my best to explain the position to non-geeks. However, my gut instinct is that the only way you can get a boycott against the record companies to work is to say they're drowning bags of kittens to make CD's or something.
Honestly, what good is the source code to a Microsoft product anyhow? You'll just open it up, look at it, shake your head and say "Man, that's fucked up". I guess it might be good for a laugh or two...
Slashdot Mirror
The Line6 amps/modelers are a step in the right direction. This type of technology is defintely going to replace vintage tube amps eventually.
It's unfortunate that they sound like shit compared to the real thing. I tried out several of their products recently and nothing touched a real tube amp. It still sounds synthetic and digital.
They're getting closer though, another 5 years and they might have something.
I'm suprised I didn't see anybody post "Don't start smoking cigarettes dumbass". That's the biggest regret I carry forward with me from my teenaged years. In fact, it might be the only regret I still carry. It's certainly the only mistake that I'm still significantly effected by.
True, I jumped too quickly on that one. My main point wasn't to discredit his facts so much as his ideas though. It seems that he was implying that amendments are somehow separate and less important than the contents of the original document.
Anyway... for the ignorant. The Constitution itself says nothing about specific rights that cannot be denied. That is all in the Bill of Rights which consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Um, the Bill of rights and all amendments are part of the constitution. See, the original document needed some fixing so they "amended" it. There is no difference between a constitutional amendment and the text of the original document. They are equally binding. They are, in fact, the same thing.
The Constitution just defines our system of government. Things like, how the constitution can be amended... length of terms for the President, senators, etc...
Also, if you like nitpicking, I think you'll find that presidential term limits are the 22nd amendment to the constitution.
Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.
Have you ever been in a room where somebody has sprayed mace? To hell if you wouldn't get out of there as fast as you could. Somebody sprayed some in the hall when I was in high school and we had to evacuate an entire floor of the building. Within a few minutes people in at least 5 classrooms were reacting to it. It's nasty stuff.
When was the last new technology you saw that used PCMCIA? Everything is firewire and USB now. USB 2.0 would be 100x more useful than PCMCIA. PCMCIA is outdated.
(PCMCIA) Is necessary. On my old PB G3 Bronze (still going strong) I use the slot for three different features: firewire, 802.11, SmartMedia adapter for my digital camera.
Um, it has firewire built in, a slot for an 802.11g card, and you can use a USB SmartMedia adapter. Explain to me your definition of necessary.
How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?
Obviously the RIAA member record companies will have to consent and will be recieving royalties for these CD's. They own the songs (and the artists' souls) afterall. If Clear Channel were to try to do this without a contract from the labels, they would certainly be sued. I wouldn't be surpised to see the record companies bail on this deal though. We all know how open minded the major labels are towards creating new products, especially products people actually want. I'm sure they'll find some reason to be afraid of this.
Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
As for the quality of the recordings, they won't be great but they don't need to be. They will not be able to hold a candle to studio recordings or label released live albums. You just can't mix and master a recording in realtime and reach the quality level of a recording that has been mixed and mastered over the course of months. (Maybe this is what the major labels will find to be scared of). However, somebody buying this recording isn't looking for sound quality. They're looking to have a memento of a show they were at. They can play it for their friends and say "I was there". There is already a thriving underground bootleg market in this country for recordings of live shows. Many of these reocordings sound horrible, sometimes made with nothing more than a built in mic on a minidisc player or cassette walkman... People still want them and these will certainly sound better than those.
People have been asking the major labels for this for years and they've never delivered on it. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Yeah, I had a hard time understanding parts of the article myself. Sorry if I came off a bit snappish. I suppose I'm a bit sensitive to this right now because I just found out yesterday that one of my very best friends is moving 1000 miles away for a morning show gig at the end of the month. I'm really going to miss both him and his wife. It's just been impossible for him to land a job since Clear Channel bought up all our local stations. He's had to resort to overnight news on the weekends and waiting tables to get by. It's sad considering how talented he is and how respected he was around town.
I either listent to my MP3's downloaded from the Net, or listen to radio stations broadcasting over Shoutcast through Winamp...
.mp3's directly off my harddrive all day.
I suspect 50 million other people are doing the same...
I also spend very little time listening to radio these days (car only in fact) but I guarantee there are far more people listening to good old fashioned FM radio right now than internet streams. Plus half the people listening to internet streams are probably listening to streams of traditional FM stations.
It might not be important to you but it's very important. Also, one thing that most internet radio is really bad for is providing the type of content that an old fashioned DJ used to provide. Most of the streams I've found are either all talk or 0 talk, no announcing songs, jokes, giving background info on an artist, etc. I suppose that's one of the reasons that I just listen to
I don't know what the norm was for sure I suppose. What I do know is that my buddy who was on the morning show for one of the bigger local radio stations here used to do all of his interviews live when they were owned by Nationwide Insurance. They were over the phone most of the time of course but they were on the air live. After they were purchased by JCorp, he was still doing most of them but not all of them live. After they were purchased by ClearChannel, I don't think any of them were live anymore though I could be wrong.
It sucks too because he was an amazing interviewer who did stuff that you just won't here in a canned, pre-recorded interview. He has a great tape of himself doing his super exagerated Chubby Checker impersonation to Chubby Checker to get his opinion. Ok, it sounds dorky but it was hilarious, trust me. You just don't get creative stuff like that when it has to be general purpose.
So... what's the BFD as long as he doesn't soound like a Speak N Spell?
If you work in the industry, the BFD is that one guy just did your job in 20 different cities. It sucks for you because the number of available jobs has now shrunk to nothing. It sucks for the public because now they're all getting the same canned crap. There's one thing for dinner and if you don't like it, tough luck. It sucks for the public because there are fewer local on-air personalities that truly understand the experience of being a New Yorker, Clevelander, Los... um... Angeleser... um... whatever.
It's great for Clear Channel though because they just eliminated 19 paychecks. It looks great on the books and looks great to the stockholders. It's a shame that over the last 50 years it's destroyed one hell of a brilliant creative medium.
The on-air personality is inches away from being a thing of the past. I have a lot of friends that work in radio. Most of them have had the stations they work for bought by clear channel. Most of my friends that are still on-air personalities (many are unemployeed these days) are being pumped out to at least 3 stations with little tweaks being done to the audio to make it sound like they are local. Frequently celebrity interviews are mocked up from a stock tape of the celebrity answering questions with the DJ's voice dubbed between even.
I keep hoping that eventually people will notice how sterile, packaged and crappy it is and that independent stations will be able to compete by way of superior programming. However, apparently people don't give a rats ass. They don't even notice how shitty radio is these days.
This clearly doesn't open up any new security holes that weren't already there.
Its worse use would be making cracking a box a little more convienient by allowing the hacker to run commands faster. It's best use would be making administering your site a little more convienient if you aren't allowed shell access. There's nothing to get up in arms about.
Isn't slashdot supposed to be an audience that understands both the legitimate and illegitimate uses of technologies. Every tool is a weapon if ya hold it right. Right?
Having not watched the game (wo gives a shit about football?)
Well, according to this site about 43% of the people watching the superbowl are women and there will be about 40 million women watching. If we do some math that puts the total viewers to about 92 million people. Assuming that most of those people are US citizens and assuming a US population of about 270 million, I'd say about 1 out of every 3 americans that you know give a shit.
I can't comment on how they all appreared, but I can say this: it's not that Shania did and Sting didn't lip synced, it's just that they were better at it than Shania was.
You just said you didn't watch the game. Until you've watched a recording, you can't say shit. Sting and No Doubt weren't lip syncing. They were actually talking to the crowd a bit, their dynamics were influenced by how they held the mic, moved around, etc... In fact, they were both fairly mediocre performances. Message in a bottle felt particularly rough and under-rehearsed. Gwen Stefani and Sting weren't really working well together on harmonies and such. It was a tolerable performance but not pre-recorded.
Almost every time you have a performance at a live event like that it's lip synched, just to be sure that nothing goes wrong.
Not true. Real musicians don't lip sync. They don't need to. They know how to handle the little mistakes that happen when you perform live.
Anybody else notice how badly Shania Twain lip synced during the halftime show? It's fucking pathetic. If you don't have the balls to sing, at least practice faking it in front of a mirror or something.
I'm glad No Doubt and Sting had the curtesy to actually perform. I think lip syncing is totally cheating the audience. Then again, I suppose people that listen to crap like Brittany Spears, NSync, and Shania Twain probably deserve to be taken advantage of to a certain degree.
Of course, they've probably already ripped his entire database using http connections from a quick little perl script. (At least I would have before letting my lawyers send a cease and desist.)
Expect the "official" database soon.
Then again, musicians could just self-publish their work and retain their copyright fromt he beginning.
Is this idea naive? Yes. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Could it ever work? Probably not, but I'm not quite so jaded as to give up hope.
There are a handful of artists whom have been very successful in retaining their copyrights and publishing themselves. It certainly can be done. I think Ani Defranco is a good example if I'm not mistaken.
It's tough though. You're not going to get any radio airplay on 95% of radio stations because you won't have the money to pay the "Independent Promoters". You'll have a hard time getting your CD's sold in record stores nationally. There are huge hurdles to jump and it's a very unfair marketplace as an independent artist. It's not impossible to succeed there though.
Ahh to only be an author as opposed to a musician. While the music industry certainly pulls in more revenue than the publishing industry, the publishing industry treats its authors much more fairly.
In the music industry, you typically do have to sign over all ownership of your songs and several albums worth of songs that you haven't even written yet. Sure you can turn them down but there's typically 100 other bands standing in line behind you that they'll gladly sign instead.
Instead, does anyone who actually makes a living (or some part of one) from creating copyrighted content think that this is a GOOD thing?
I make a portion of my living creating, selling, and performing copyrighted works. At one point it was as much as 75% of my income though now it's down to 5% or less temporarily. By this summer, it should be back up to 25% or so.
I think this judgement is a bad thing. Right now I would benefit much more from being able to pull more heavily on past works than I gain from having my work protected 75 years after I'm dead and gone. Then again, the last two copyright extensions weren't passed for me, a signer/songwriter. They were passed for Disney, Time Warner, Sony, and the likes. There are a handful of old Louis Armstrong and Louis Jordan tunes that I would LOVE to record new versions of. They're ripe for being redone with a modern spin. I can't afford to license anything though. Hell, right now I'm having a hard enough time paying for studio time and decent equipment. Of course, I still get to perform those works live due to the agreements that clubs have with ASCAP and such. I just can't record them and sell the recordings.
The current landscape for musicians (at least in my part of the country) is ugly. A lot of it is cultural and has nothing to do with copyright. Movies are just a much more popular form of entertainment than live music these days. I guarantee 100x more people see a movie on any given night in my city than see a live band - probably 1000x. So, as a musician, you do some recording and turn to the Internet as a source of revenue except the record labels are locking it down to where it's difficult to get any more exposure there than you can Clear Channel dominated radio. MP3.com's top 40 lists are dominated by signed acts now. CARP has suppressed most independent webcasting. It's a rough market to be in which is why I'm working a programming job, slacking off typing this instead of sitting somewhere writing music or performing. I feel comfortable blaming a significant portion of that on current copyright laws (Especially if you credit restrictive copyrights with part of the stagnation and lack of creativity that the established music industry is exhibiting). But it's much more than just copyright. There are 1000 other issues contributing to the difficulties associated with making a living as a musician these days.
Part of being a good consultant or designer is managing your customer's expectations and steering them in the right direction. They've hired you because they know they aren't capable of doing what you do. You will always have to make some little concessions but if you pick your battles and present sensable arguments, you'll make very few.
If somebody really earnestly demands that you create a piece of shit site, the contract probably isn't worth it anyhow. What's more valuable, a week's pay or your reputation?
Hmm, my guess is that Sony's next console will be shying away from the PlayStation moniker..."
Um, providing this article were true, why wouldn't they use the name? They just paid 2.3 billion dollars for it.
The hard part is actually getting enough people to understand the issues and join the boycott. It's not simple, you can't tell people they're slaughtering cute little puppies for fur or something. You have to go into a huge explaination of the issues at the end of which, most people's response is "So what?".
I personally no longer purchase new CD's unless I'm buying them directly from an unsigned artist. I go to the used record store if I want something published by a label. It might take a little while for something specific to show up but I always have a list of 20-30 CD's that I want to buy at a given time anyhow. I would certainly participate in an official boycott and do my best to explain the position to non-geeks. However, my gut instinct is that the only way you can get a boycott against the record companies to work is to say they're drowning bags of kittens to make CD's or something.
Don't expect any support from the media either...
Musicians listen to the music.
Engineers listen to the sound.
Audiophiles listen to the noise.
Well said.
Honestly, what good is the source code to a Microsoft product anyhow? You'll just open it up, look at it, shake your head and say "Man, that's fucked up". I guess it might be good for a laugh or two...