I've been a pretty avid listener of Metallica since around "Ride the Lightning" or so. In those days and up until about "Metallica", James Hetfield had said in numerous interviews words to the effect of: 1) It's about the music, not the money 2) The big record labels are just big corporate and are basically parasitic by nature.
Recent events would seem to indicate that it's no longer about the music, but very much about the money. It also indicates a reversal in regards to the record label.
If this is indeed a reversal, why the change? If it's not a reversal, how is the recent legal activity justified.
Thanks. I'll still keep listening to the early Metallica work, but I won't buy another new CD until this legal nonsense is over.
When I was in the Navy, we used night vision goggles to see things on the flight deck at night during periods when lights were prohibited. If someone nearby lit a match, it was blinding, and all you could see was a green haze.
Wouldn't this sort of thing be a problem here too?
I have been using Linux since kernel 0.98. I've always wanted to contribute to the code base on one project or another, but I only have two college semesters of C programming.
The code that I've read in the Linux source tree is almost always far and away better than what I think I could do. I'm a decent programmer, but the people who are contributing to Linux are far more experienced.
How can I get on one of the projects without being a C wizard?
If I were in the MS camp, and worried -- as they appear to be getting, I would think about sabatoging packages. If a given group was talented and intent, what would stop them from deliberately sabotoging packages and then claiming to the press/world how vulnerable the Open Source community is?
Gates lost a lot of sleep when he thought Netscape was a challenger. He and MS as a whole have been shown to pull some VERY dirty stunts to protect their market share. I'm not saying that they do this, or even that MS specifically would, but what's stopping people from doing it?
I don't pretend to know a lot about the security of the packages and the sources they are mirrored, so this is not a rhetorical question.
With the advent of/.'s new customizability, if people don't care for it, they can choose not to see it. Personally, I thought it was well written. Even if I didn't agree with all of it, it was still enoyable to read. I voted to keep him.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been a pretty avid listener of Metallica since around "Ride the Lightning" or so. In those days and up until about "Metallica", James Hetfield had said in numerous interviews words to the effect of:
1) It's about the music, not the money
2) The big record labels are just big corporate and are basically parasitic by nature.
Recent events would seem to indicate that it's no longer about the music, but very much about the money. It also indicates a reversal in regards to the record label.
If this is indeed a reversal, why the change?
If it's not a reversal, how is the recent legal activity justified.
Thanks. I'll still keep listening to the early Metallica work, but I won't buy another new CD until this legal nonsense is over.
When I was in the Navy, we used night vision goggles to see things on the flight deck at night during periods when lights were prohibited. If someone nearby lit a match, it was blinding, and all you could see was a green haze.
Wouldn't this sort of thing be a problem here too?
I have been using Linux since kernel 0.98. I've always wanted to contribute to the code base on one project or another, but I only have two college semesters of C programming.
The code that I've read in the Linux source tree is almost always far and away better than what I think I could do. I'm a decent programmer, but the people who are contributing to Linux are far more experienced.
How can I get on one of the projects without being a C wizard?
The article is well conceived and well executed. However, the sentence,
"And perhaps most significantly, where the power of technology would be carefully harassed for the common good. "
Should probobly have read,
"And perhaps most significantly, where the power of technology would be carefully harnassed for the common good. "
Okay, So. . .
1) I got "the letter"
2) I was accepted (on the second try)
3) I re-confirmed my interest
4) I had enough in my account
I *STILL* didn't get any M*ther F***ing shares!!
How does all this work????
If I were in the MS camp, and worried -- as they appear to be getting, I would think about sabatoging packages. If a given group was talented and intent, what would stop them from deliberately sabotoging packages and then claiming to the press/world how vulnerable the Open Source community is?
Gates lost a lot of sleep when he thought Netscape was a challenger. He and MS as a whole have been shown to pull some VERY dirty stunts to protect their market share. I'm not saying that they do this, or even that MS specifically would, but what's stopping people from doing it?
I don't pretend to know a lot about the security of the packages and the sources they are mirrored, so this is not a rhetorical question.
With the advent of /.'s new customizability, if people don't care for it, they can choose not to see it. Personally, I thought it was well written. Even if I didn't agree with all of it, it was still enoyable to read. I voted to keep him.