Assumedly because it was called '3l33t'. As has been mentioned over and over, (and over and over?) when prince uses 'b' and '2', it goes back way farther than l33t h4x0rs and all that stupid shit. It's what he has ALWAYS done. And, to ask someone to change his style of expression in something like this because some stupid little kids also like it, is lame.
There is a point in the original post, though. It does get hard to read sometimes (the lyrics of i hate u were especially fun to read on a tired night.;) And it shouldn't have been moderated down.
So, after he's made all this money (note: he didn't complain at the time, did he?) he now makes a sweep at the record company. He score a few popularity points, gets his name in the media, and everybody thinks he's great. Does he give his money back to the fans?
Prince's passion has always been dance clubs. It's really what he lives for. His music. Not so much the money, And it's nice to be able to not have to make the money elsewhere, but through all of the years, It really seems he's in it to make his music. Some of his latest albums (Emancipation, Crystal ball) Were 3 and 4 cd's respectively. And released right after eachother.
And although his biggest issue DOES seem to be his annoyance with record companies, I've always enjoyed his music and always will..
Prince has been using wording like that on all of his albums for quite some time. This really has nothing to do with laziness and actually *IS* expressionism, Though, here, on the net, it gets taken the wrong way.
Hah! Debian 2.2 is STILL not out in stable! It's been almost a year and a half, and they don't publish upgrades to
their blessed packages unless it's a big security fix, and it can't break anything, and has to be tested first.
What really saddens me is That people like mandrake and redhat and such throw Everything into their newest distributions and CALL it stable, and people believe it. Debian 2.2 is as good as stable, it's just being tested, and tested, and tested.
There's a shirt on copyleft that says "Debian: When code matters more than commercials."... That's one of the points of debian. if you go with a distribution like mandrake or redhat or caldera, you know, deep down (or at least, you should), that the only reason that distribution exists is that they want to make some money. That's why there's been the IPO's. Not that there's anything wrong with money, or making it, But i'd rather trust someone who is writing the code for his or her own use rather than his or her own pocketbook. Debian's there because we want to use it. Not because we want to Pay some carpetbagger who thinks linux is the next Big Moneymaker.
That's ok with me, except that they take too long between releases, and unless you want to break (!) your package
setup, you can't upgrade your samba, apache, etc.., or dpkg/apt-get has a hissy fit.
That's never broken *MY* Packages before.
That's one of the most common debian misconceptions. 'stable'/'unstable' have more definitions than just non-dangerous/dangerous. one of the meanings of 'stable' is "not changing" versus "constantly changing" for unstable. When debian releases a STABLE distribution, it means it's been tested, proven, and works beautifully, even if it's not CuttingEdge(TM!)... Many times "This is reliable, And well tested." is WAY more important than "This is the newest thing out there!" Think about it. which would YOU really want on an important server?
I don't think that The point of most people ie "I don't want someone making money from my gpl'd code", but rather "I'm giving this out, to the world so that it's free to use. Always. All I ask is that nobody tries to take that Away." I would personally be PROUD if software that I had written was being used in commercial software. It's the part about people being bitchy and saying "Aw, that sure was nice of him to release this code. Let's take advantage of his contribution to the world and use part of it for our own personal gain and not give it out to Anyone! Whee!"
The GPL is much like a Standard EULA. It says "Hey, you can use this all you want, but you've got to agree to *MY* terms." Simple. It's just what the actual terms are that make it different. Just because it doesn't SAY "if these terms are broken, you must destroy all copies of this..." or anything like that, doesn't mean that you're allowed to break the license. It says, Though, that if you don't like The way it's distributed, or the licensing involved, Then you can find yourself another solution.
It's simply: "Here! use this, It's free! keep it that way!" But the world that we live in won't accept that as a legal license, no. They've taken the time to breed a new Species of human, Lawyers, to make everything more complicated.
Anyway, Debian is like an Old Lady's Fussy Society of the open source movement. I find it hard to believe that their 2.1 is still the current release: The latest release of Debian is 2.1. It was released on 9 March 1999 says their website. Being that this Debian uses Linux 2.0.36, I gotta laugh...
Yeah, if you're still USING slink. That's the latest release of the 'stable' distribution, meaning that everything's been tested and works perfectly. I, on the other hand, don't Use slink. I don't use potato, either. Shocker. I'm using the debian 'woody' distribution, And i also have the lines in my sources.list for helixGNOME and ljlane's Enlightenment/Eeyes/Eeyes2/Imlib/imlib2/EFM/et cetera packages.
I'd also like to point out that anyone with a good internet server and a little bit of knowledge could put together a Server That includes The necessary Debian PAckages files and directory hierarchy for a debian archive That INCLUDES KDE, or Netscape, or whatever. It's not THAT hard to do. If i had the Time OR the bandwidth, i'd do it for Anything i were to write. And it's also possible to Use StormLinux's sources.list lines in order to add KDE to your system.
Now we all know that it runs on an x86 Processor, And that it's going to run on a Windows-Based operating system. Problems? Microsoft can Do on e of two things here. They have the option of Making the XBox games able to run on ANY M$-Based computer, or They can make the XBox games NOT Compatible with These other games. If they make them compatible, the thing would turn into a little computer, and if it's incompatible, People who use computers for gaming wouldn't want to buy an Xbox just to play the same games, right?
So they're trying to appeal to the console gaming market, To try to enlarge their dominion. But the hardware traditionally used in console gaming is nothing even remotely like today's computers. These things are DESIGNED to kick ass for gaming and gaming alone. Why bother with the x86 processor and a microsoft operating system (Assumedly CE, Dreamcast uses it too)? I just think microsoft is trying to appeal to the wrong people here. Of course, They're actually only trying to apeal to people to the point that we pull out our checkbooks, right?
However, the playstation2 has quite an Awesome advantage here. TI's the backwards compatibility, Along with the Year Jumpstart. Right on launch, there's an astonishing amount of games available to play on it, Along with it's DVD capability and The fact that The PS1 IS the industry leader right now, Anyway. And with the new games that are coming out, Along with The new games coming out. Of course, we've seen things like this before. For example, The Sega Genesis came out well ahead of the SNES, but the SNES still became more popular in the long run. Why? Games, mainly. The Sega Master System was nowhere NEAR as popular as the NES, So everyone KNEW NES'S games, and they had some great titles lines up for SNES. Problem is, When the N64 came out, all of IT'S games were the same thing. some lameass running around in a 3d world. That CAN get boring After a while. My point is that if the Xbox wants to succeed, there's a hell of a lot of history to look at and obstacles to climb, hurdles to jump. We'll just have to wait and see...
The problem is, The case against microsoft isn't about their general monopoly. It's about how they USED their monopoly power to boost IE and kill NetScape. Opening up these API's would not remedy what the suit is for.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a point in the original post, though. It does get hard to read sometimes (the lyrics of i hate u were especially fun to read on a tired night. ;) And it shouldn't have been moderated down.
Prince's passion has always been dance clubs. It's really what he lives for. His music. Not so much the money, And it's nice to be able to not have to make the money elsewhere, but through all of the years, It really seems he's in it to make his music. Some of his latest albums (Emancipation, Crystal ball) Were 3 and 4 cd's respectively. And released right after eachother.
And although his biggest issue DOES seem to be his annoyance with record companies, I've always enjoyed his music and always will..
Prince has been using wording like that on all of his albums for quite some time. This really has nothing to do with laziness and actually *IS* expressionism, Though, here, on the net, it gets taken the wrong way.
their blessed packages unless it's a big security fix, and it can't break anything, and has to be tested first.
What really saddens me is That people like mandrake and redhat and such throw Everything into their newest distributions and CALL it stable, and people believe it. Debian 2.2 is as good as stable, it's just being tested, and tested, and tested.
There's a shirt on copyleft that says "Debian: When code matters more than commercials."... That's one of the points of debian. if you go with a distribution like mandrake or redhat or caldera, you know, deep down (or at least, you should), that the only reason that distribution exists is that they want to make some money. That's why there's been the IPO's. Not that there's anything wrong with money, or making it, But i'd rather trust someone who is writing the code for his or her own use rather than his or her own pocketbook. Debian's there because we want to use it. Not because we want to Pay some carpetbagger who thinks linux is the next Big Moneymaker.
That's ok with me, except that they take too long between releases, and unless you want to break (!) your package
setup, you can't upgrade your samba, apache, etc.., or dpkg/apt-get has a hissy fit.
Ahem:
# cd /etc/apt
# cat sources.list | sed 's/stable/woody/g' > sources.list
# apt-get update
# apt-get dist-upgrade
That's never broken *MY* Packages before. That's one of the most common debian misconceptions. 'stable'/'unstable' have more definitions than just non-dangerous/dangerous. one of the meanings of 'stable' is "not changing" versus "constantly changing" for unstable. When debian releases a STABLE distribution, it means it's been tested, proven, and works beautifully, even if it's not CuttingEdge(TM!)... Many times "This is reliable, And well tested." is WAY more important than "This is the newest thing out there!" Think about it. which would YOU really want on an important server?
I'll stand by my debian, thank you.
I would personally be PROUD if software that I had written was being used in commercial software. It's the part about people being bitchy and saying "Aw, that sure was nice of him to release this code. Let's take advantage of his contribution to the world and use part of it for our own personal gain and not give it out to Anyone! Whee!"
The GPL is much like a Standard EULA. It says "Hey, you can use this all you want, but you've got to agree to *MY* terms." Simple. It's just what the actual terms are that make it different. Just because it doesn't SAY "if these terms are broken, you must destroy all copies of this ..." or anything like that, doesn't mean that you're allowed to break the license. It says, Though, that if you don't like The way it's distributed, or the licensing involved, Then you can find yourself another solution.
It's simply: "Here! use this, It's free! keep it that way!" But the world that we live in won't accept that as a legal license, no. They've taken the time to breed a new Species of human, Lawyers, to make everything more complicated.
Idunno. my 2 cents, i guess.
Yeah, if you're still USING slink. That's the latest release of the 'stable' distribution, meaning that everything's been tested and works perfectly. I, on the other hand, don't Use slink.
I don't use potato, either. Shocker. I'm using the debian 'woody' distribution, And i also have the lines in my sources.list for helixGNOME and ljlane's Enlightenment/Eeyes/Eeyes2/Imlib/imlib2/EFM/et cetera packages.
I'd also like to point out that anyone with a good internet server and a little bit of knowledge could put together a Server That includes The necessary Debian PAckages files and directory hierarchy for a debian archive That INCLUDES KDE, or Netscape, or whatever. It's not THAT hard to do. If i had the Time OR the bandwidth, i'd do it for Anything i were to write. And it's also possible to Use StormLinux's sources.list lines in order to add KDE to your system.
Now we all know that it runs on an x86 Processor, And that it's going to run on a Windows-Based operating system. Problems? Microsoft can Do on e of two things here. They have the option of Making the XBox games able to run on ANY M$-Based computer, or They can make the XBox games NOT Compatible with These other games. If they make them compatible, the thing would turn into a little computer, and if it's incompatible, People who use computers for gaming wouldn't want to buy an Xbox just to play the same games, right?
So they're trying to appeal to the console gaming market, To try to enlarge their dominion. But the hardware traditionally used in console gaming is nothing even remotely like today's computers. These things are DESIGNED to kick ass for gaming and gaming alone. Why bother with the x86 processor and a microsoft operating system (Assumedly CE, Dreamcast uses it too)? I just think microsoft is trying to appeal to the wrong people here. Of course, They're actually only trying to apeal to people to the point that we pull out our checkbooks, right?
However, the playstation2 has quite an Awesome advantage here. TI's the backwards compatibility, Along with the Year Jumpstart. Right on launch, there's an astonishing amount of games available to play on it, Along with it's DVD capability and The fact that The PS1 IS the industry leader right now, Anyway. And with the new games that are coming out, Along with The new games coming out. Of course, we've seen things like this before. For example, The Sega Genesis came out well ahead of the SNES, but the SNES still became more popular in the long run. Why? Games, mainly. The Sega Master System was nowhere NEAR as popular as the NES, So everyone KNEW NES'S games, and they had some great titles lines up for SNES. Problem is, When the N64 came out, all of IT'S games were the same thing. some lameass running around in a 3d world. That CAN get boring After a while. My point is that if the Xbox wants to succeed, there's a hell of a lot of history to look at and obstacles to climb, hurdles to jump. We'll just have to wait and see...
The problem is, The case against microsoft isn't about their general monopoly. It's about how they USED their monopoly power to boost IE and kill NetScape. Opening up these API's would not remedy what the suit is for.