Actually, acting like a fucking idiot is something you've got down pat. Claiming that your personal definition for control of the work after release (as in "the author is 100% fucked and has no rights with regards to his work") is the preaching of a true control-freak shitbag. Your way or the highway.
The author owns the work. You don't like the license, THEN DON'T FUCKING BUY IT. You don't have any right whatsoever to use the software unless you abide by the license, and that's exactly the way it should be. Choose or lose, asshole.
Yep, this isn't difficult to do at all. If you cgi the site you could simply say "if the call contains generic identifier x then pull up the page, else go to the index page". Not a real stretch of brain power. There are about a half-dozen other methods I can think of too so long as you're using programming scripts to actually feed the pages when requests are made.
It says something about the designers that they haven't implemented this but instead complain about 'unauthorized links'. Putzes. Maybe somebody should refer them to Perl 101 (or whatever poison is your choice).
The only true freedom here is to allow the author to release under any damn license they choose - and the customer can opt to purchase or not as they please. That allows maximum freedom for both parties without imposing some fuckwit's personal view of the universe (read "do things my way because I'm right and you're wrong") on the way that everyone else does business.
Any "free" advocate who, speaking solely from their assholes, goes on and on about how proprietary software is evil, or how current licensing schemes are an oppression, or whatever pole they've currently rammed up their hindquarters, is a moron. A complete, total, one-hundred-percent fucking idiot. Let's not be polite here, because hell - they're trying to take away *my* freedom to buy the draconian crap I might want, so they aren't being polite to *me*. These clueless shits think that their own 'moral' viewpoint on free software supercedes that of all of us low-brows who might want to purchase stuff that doesn't meet their approval. And since we are low-brows incapable of grokking their high-minded principles, we somehow have to be protected from our own natures.
In actuality this has nothing to do with morality. It's power-grabbing in the guise of "the greater good", the same tired old crap that every malicious little twit with a hunger to make others do things they don't want to do has been foisting off on humanity for thousands of years. Only here it's dressed up (ridiculously enough) in the clothes of "Free = Good, Licence X I Don't Like = Evil".
If you're this sort of "free" advocate, then please - blow me. I don't need yet another power-mad 'do-gooder' trying to tell me how to live my life, even in this tiny, almost inconsequential fashion. If you think lobbying for laws to outlaw whatever licensing you find objectionable is a good thing then there's a speeding bus I'd like you to meet. Because when it comes right down to it this kind of 'advocate' is just another neighbor trying to stick his nose in my fucking business.
Now if Stallman gets elected to the board and immediately tries to impose his own personal standards on the GNOME project, trying to bury any non-free software he doesn't like, then he's just another dime-a-dozen asshole no different than any other control-freak or power-whore in history. Mark my words on this - having heard Stallman I guarrantee that this is precisely what he will do. The man doesn't give a shit about our freedom of choice - he only wants all of us to follow *his* choices whether we want to or not. I have no doubt whatsoever that, like any fanatic, he'd rather see the GNOME project up and die than deviate in any way whatsoever from the path he thinks it should tread.
What bullshit. People who write proprietary software, no matter how draconian the licenses, don't "take" anything from me unless I allow them to - by buying the software in the first place. I don't like the license, I don't buy - whining, pissing, and moaning about some vague ethical point is for idiots.
True freedom allows everyone to release what they write under any license they like, and allows everyone else the option of choosing or not choosing the software. Anything else is someone's campaign for personal power dressed up as "for the good of the people". Been there, done that, fuck everyone who uses that line.
God, I'd kill for a country that wasn't so full of it's own pseudo-moral in-your-face neighbors-want-to-tell-you-how-the-fuck-to-live-yo ur-life bullshit. What violence I wouldn't do to live an a free country that's actually FREE.
Hey, I'm not sure if I remember this correctly since the Unacceptable Textbook Ban Treaty of 2014, but weren't there some guys who pretty much said the same thing back in the 1700's and did something about it?
Hope that little comment doesn't violate the Revisionist History Act of 2019. Wait, hold on, somebody's pounding on my front door....
Our own governments, of course. What self-respecting government, ruling from fear and intimidation, can tolerate the development of an increasingly open world where national boundaries become less and less important every day? It only makes sense that the traditional governments of the world would take off the glove and start smashing about with the iron fast, rather than willingly give up one iota of power.
The only thing government understands, when it comes to power, is force. Time to start smashing back.
This guy is so smart he has you knocked out before you even know you are in the ring and that there is a boxing match.
Give me a fucking break. Bill is no genius - he can barely string together a coherent sentence when his speech is written before him, much less when he's answering questions free-style. Smarts didn't get him to where he is now; rather, cunning and a willingness to fuck everyone and their brother over for the buck. Hell, his own mother pretty much characterized him as a right bastard and I think she'd know better than any slashdotter.
Bill is a great, shining testament to the power of unbridled capitalism. If you're entirely unscrupulous, have rich, connected parents, and regularly show complete and utter contempt for any form of legal justice you too can acquire more money than most small countries!
But smart? Yeah, right, and his cock is a foot long too, eh?
It would be a decent gesture if it weren't required by law. Federal law mandates a public commentary period for certain government actions; the departments involved have to give you the opportunity to speak out on certain upcoming decisions. The DOJ doesn't have any choice in the matter.
In fact, they're doing their best to fulfill the letter of the law with the least amount of effort possible. Notice that their won't be any public hearings on the proposed remedy from common citizens, as is often required at the local level. Nope, they'll get thousands upon thousands of emails, all of which they'll happily delete without once reconsidering their course of action.
You weren't speaking of bias; you claimed that because Oregon lacked a sales tax Washington, in some mystical fashion, subsidizes Oregon.
This is a ridiculous claim to make. Simply because your sales tax encourages Washington residents to buy in Oregon doesn't mean that Oregon is in any way, shape, or form responsible for the system *you've* put into place. If it causes your state difficulties that's *your* problem, not ours. It would be equally idiotic for me to claim that Washington causes problems for Oregon by encouraging high wage-earners to move across the border.
Either state could rectify the perceived 'problem' by changing it's tax scheme. Washington could, for example, eliminate the sales tax and implement an income tax - end of RV buyers crossing the border. But again, that's up to Washington to correct its own problems; Oregon has nothing to do with that.
By no stretch of logic could you support the claim that Washington in any way subsidizes Oregon. How we tax ourselves is our business; if you were brain-dead enough to vote in a sales tax, then *you* deal with it. Your tax woes aren't our problem.
Ooooh, the potential! Natalie Portman and Jessica Alba doing the wild thing, and not just 28 seconds in mid-clip with bad disco playing over the grunts and groans! Talk about the internet killer app: porn that you can create with anyone you lust after doing anything you want! Including to you!
If you're over the age of five, isn't the primary reason for watching the movie to indulge a lust-fest for Natalie Portman? I mean, who doesn't want a long weekend with that girl?
He pointed out the financial reality that the artist pays for the work, the artist decides on the work is, they don't get any money if the work flops, etc, none of which are true in any other industry's 'work for hire'.
You don't get the point, just as he doesn't. You decided to deal with the devil, you knew the terms of the deal from the get-go, now you have to abide by those terms.
It doesn't matter if the conditions are different. Don't like them, then don't deal. Those are your choices. You don't get to decide after the fact that because you're an 'artist' you ge to renegotiate no matter how bad the initial contract. Maybe it'll teach you not to be such an idiot when signing away your soul in the first place.
Well, no. I'm talking about a Corporation having rights equal to the artist (an actual human being).
If you assigned those rights in contract then yes, I do believe that. Your rights in the matter are assignable, not inalienable.
Effectivly forcing anyone who wants to sell a song into being a Record Company employee.
I'd refer you to the "Ani DiFranco" way of doing business, or the recent success of the "sell x copies and then we'll release" band web site method. Don't like the RIAA or it's band of thieves, then don't deal with them.
Programmers should have rights for thier code don't you think? No?
"No" is right if I signed away the property via contract. I've done both: assigned use of the program but not rights, and assigned rights. I full well know that I don't own the code if I go the second route; the company I contracted to owns the code and can do whatever the hell they want with it (including reselling it, making a $100 million bucks, and not cutting me a penny). Once I give away the rights the product is no longer mine. There's nothing special about artistic endeavor.
Like I said, I don't like the RIAA and think their tactics reek of the near-evil. But I do not think that 'artists', just because they claim to belong to this group, should get any special consideration for what they do. Contract law applies across the board to everyone regardless of the output; you sign away your rights, too bad for you. There's nothing special about a musician as compared to a programmer, nor is there anything inherently more noteworthy about the musician's output.
It did indeed happen. It was common knowledge at the time that it happened because RMS made something of a stink about the fact that Linus blew him off. I believe the page number for the reference is 133 in "Just For Fun", but I don't have it here in front of me so that's just a guess.
Regardless of RMS's stated position those are the actions he took concerning the Linux kernel. It appears at RMS's actions are in contradiction to his stated opinion.
What bullshit. You make it sound as if the 'creative act' of doing something vaguely artistic is somehow different from any other kind of work-for-hire.
It isn't. Not legally, not ethically. Artists signing a work-for-hire contract are no more protected than I am. It doesn't matter a good goddamn if they're producing music and I'm producing codes - the law is the same. Don't like it? Don't sign the fucking contract!
Frankly, the entire argument sums up as "because I'm an artist, my output is more special than that produced by a non-artist and therefore not bound by the same laws". Crap. Your output is just the same as anyone elses and there's nothing whatsoever special about it other than the artist's own delusions.
You aren't 'forced' into any kind of agreement with a record company. You sign, you uphold your end of the bargain. Don't like it, don't sign. Do sign, shut your yap and do your job.
Yes, he does complain about it. He told Linus ("Just For Fun") that the kernel should be called GNU/Linux because Linus used some free software tools (e.g., gcc) to create it. This is a matter of record, and not just in Linus's autobiography.
He wasn't referring to any bundled distribution, just the Linux kernel itself. By RMS's definition, anyone creating any software which might remotely be connected to an FSF tool, like the aforementioned gcc, should put "GNU" in front of the name.
It is in the interest of all of us creative types to have it reinforced that the US Constitution requires that copyright go to authors
What crack are you smoking? The Constitution requires no such thing.
And please explain to me why you 'creative types' should have more rights to what is obviously "work for hire" (you sign the contract, after all) than I do when I write original code under the same type of contract.
Or perhaps your standards only apply to whatever subset of "creative people" you personally define?
Can anyone explain to me how a court of law can find a giant monopolistic music/entertainment/whatever it's bought recently company can be granted the rights to music over the artist who wrote it?
Can anyone explain to me how a court of law can find a giant monopolistic software/operating system/whatever it's bought recently company can be granted the rights to the code over the programmers who wrote it?
No, wait, that happens all the time...it's called work for hire.
Can anyone tell me why a so-called 'artist' who signs a contract transferring song rights to companies is somehow more oppressed than I am when it comes to coding under the same conditions? Jesus H. Christ....
Let's also take into account that it's a common slashdot misconception that deriding popular music and parroting idiotic phrases like "indy music roolz, dood!" somehow makes one intellectually superior to those folks who actually prefer the music of Britney Spears or Mandy Moore, or whoever is at the top of the charts at the moment. There's a double-standard here that those who praise independent music or small-time artists are fans of 'real' music, while those who like pop bands are just blind sheep being herded along by the RIAA.
Of course, anyone who examines this in an objective fashion for more than 30 seconds will readily see that this is nothing more than a crock of egotistical bullshit wallowed in by pseudo-intellectual pricks looking for an easy, slash-dot-approved target. Talk about sheep begging for the easy back-pat.
I don't like the RIAA or its tactics. This doesn't mean that I'm going to mindlessly mimic Joe College Student in his arrogant claims about the people who listen to pop music being drones, or support him when he raves about how much 'better' indy music is over the Top 40. When he does this, Joe College Student is nothing more than a fucking asshole pulling his own pud to puff up his ego.
Whether or not you like Britney Spears, or Mandy Moore, or whoever doesn't define intellect or musical aptitude, but simply taste. That is *all*. Some people have a taste for these folks and some don't. To say that one person's taste is somehow 'more refined' than another's is a game for nasty little children whose mothers should've slapped them upside the head more often.
Hey, buddy. Everything we need to know about the word 'jihad' was explained to us by Frank Herbert in the "Dune" series. Don't confuse people with facts.
I suppose if you define the givers as only coders. But if you define those who participate as anyone who downloads the code, discovers bugs or problems and reports back to the developers on these things then I'd say the 'givers' are quite a bit larger than this tiny subset.
Not to mention the folks who maintain web sites, mailing lists, mirrors, etc. A large number of folks contribute according to their ability and inclination, which is precisely the idea behind open source in the first place.
Yet another brain-dead idea from Idiots Anonymous. What's amazing is how many people think that this is even remotely sensible.
Yeah...pay for every page. If you want to go ahead - subscribe to web sites that you want to pay for. But don't think you're going to involve me or my credit card in this moronic scheme.
Works for me! Think: I've always wanted to have a little 'quality time' with Christina Aguilera, but am enough of a realist to know that it won't happen in this universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, acting like a fucking idiot is something you've got down pat. Claiming that your personal definition for control of the work after release (as in "the author is 100% fucked and has no rights with regards to his work") is the preaching of a true control-freak shitbag. Your way or the highway.
The author owns the work. You don't like the license, THEN DON'T FUCKING BUY IT. You don't have any right whatsoever to use the software unless you abide by the license, and that's exactly the way it should be. Choose or lose, asshole.
Max
Yep, this isn't difficult to do at all. If you cgi the site you could simply say "if the call contains generic identifier x then pull up the page, else go to the index page". Not a real stretch of brain power. There are about a half-dozen other methods I can think of too so long as you're using programming scripts to actually feed the pages when requests are made.
It says something about the designers that they haven't implemented this but instead complain about 'unauthorized links'. Putzes. Maybe somebody should refer them to Perl 101 (or whatever poison is your choice).
Max
The only true freedom here is to allow the author to release under any damn license they choose - and the customer can opt to purchase or not as they please. That allows maximum freedom for both parties without imposing some fuckwit's personal view of the universe (read "do things my way because I'm right and you're wrong") on the way that everyone else does business.
Any "free" advocate who, speaking solely from their assholes, goes on and on about how proprietary software is evil, or how current licensing schemes are an oppression, or whatever pole they've currently rammed up their hindquarters, is a moron. A complete, total, one-hundred-percent fucking idiot. Let's not be polite here, because hell - they're trying to take away *my* freedom to buy the draconian crap I might want, so they aren't being polite to *me*. These clueless shits think that their own 'moral' viewpoint on free software supercedes that of all of us low-brows who might want to purchase stuff that doesn't meet their approval. And since we are low-brows incapable of grokking their high-minded principles, we somehow have to be protected from our own natures.
In actuality this has nothing to do with morality. It's power-grabbing in the guise of "the greater good", the same tired old crap that every malicious little twit with a hunger to make others do things they don't want to do has been foisting off on humanity for thousands of years. Only here it's dressed up (ridiculously enough) in the clothes of "Free = Good, Licence X I Don't Like = Evil".
If you're this sort of "free" advocate, then please - blow me. I don't need yet another power-mad 'do-gooder' trying to tell me how to live my life, even in this tiny, almost inconsequential fashion. If you think lobbying for laws to outlaw whatever licensing you find objectionable is a good thing then there's a speeding bus I'd like you to meet. Because when it comes right down to it this kind of 'advocate' is just another neighbor trying to stick his nose in my fucking business.
Now if Stallman gets elected to the board and immediately tries to impose his own personal standards on the GNOME project, trying to bury any non-free software he doesn't like, then he's just another dime-a-dozen asshole no different than any other control-freak or power-whore in history. Mark my words on this - having heard Stallman I guarrantee that this is precisely what he will do. The man doesn't give a shit about our freedom of choice - he only wants all of us to follow *his* choices whether we want to or not. I have no doubt whatsoever that, like any fanatic, he'd rather see the GNOME project up and die than deviate in any way whatsoever from the path he thinks it should tread.
Max
What bullshit. People who write proprietary software, no matter how draconian the licenses, don't "take" anything from me unless I allow them to - by buying the software in the first place. I don't like the license, I don't buy - whining, pissing, and moaning about some vague ethical point is for idiots.
True freedom allows everyone to release what they write under any license they like, and allows everyone else the option of choosing or not choosing the software. Anything else is someone's campaign for personal power dressed up as "for the good of the people". Been there, done that, fuck everyone who uses that line.
Max
God, I'd kill for a country that wasn't so full of it's own pseudo-moral in-your-face neighbors-want-to-tell-you-how-the-fuck-to-live-yo ur-life bullshit. What violence I wouldn't do to live an a free country that's actually FREE.
Hey, I'm not sure if I remember this correctly since the Unacceptable Textbook Ban Treaty of 2014, but weren't there some guys who pretty much said the same thing back in the 1700's and did something about it?
Hope that little comment doesn't violate the Revisionist History Act of 2019. Wait, hold on, somebody's pounding on my front door....
Max
Our own governments, of course. What self-respecting government, ruling from fear and intimidation, can tolerate the development of an increasingly open world where national boundaries become less and less important every day? It only makes sense that the traditional governments of the world would take off the glove and start smashing about with the iron fast, rather than willingly give up one iota of power.
The only thing government understands, when it comes to power, is force. Time to start smashing back.
Max
This guy is so smart he has you knocked out before you even know you are in the ring and that there is a boxing match.
Give me a fucking break. Bill is no genius - he can barely string together a coherent sentence when his speech is written before him, much less when he's answering questions free-style. Smarts didn't get him to where he is now; rather, cunning and a willingness to fuck everyone and their brother over for the buck. Hell, his own mother pretty much characterized him as a right bastard and I think she'd know better than any slashdotter.
Bill is a great, shining testament to the power of unbridled capitalism. If you're entirely unscrupulous, have rich, connected parents, and regularly show complete and utter contempt for any form of legal justice you too can acquire more money than most small countries!
But smart? Yeah, right, and his cock is a foot long too, eh?
Max
Why take a decent gesture and piss all over it?
It would be a decent gesture if it weren't required by law. Federal law mandates a public commentary period for certain government actions; the departments involved have to give you the opportunity to speak out on certain upcoming decisions. The DOJ doesn't have any choice in the matter.
In fact, they're doing their best to fulfill the letter of the law with the least amount of effort possible. Notice that their won't be any public hearings on the proposed remedy from common citizens, as is often required at the local level. Nope, they'll get thousands upon thousands of emails, all of which they'll happily delete without once reconsidering their course of action.
Max
You weren't speaking of bias; you claimed that because Oregon lacked a sales tax Washington, in some mystical fashion, subsidizes Oregon.
This is a ridiculous claim to make. Simply because your sales tax encourages Washington residents to buy in Oregon doesn't mean that Oregon is in any way, shape, or form responsible for the system *you've* put into place. If it causes your state difficulties that's *your* problem, not ours. It would be equally idiotic for me to claim that Washington causes problems for Oregon by encouraging high wage-earners to move across the border.
Either state could rectify the perceived 'problem' by changing it's tax scheme. Washington could, for example, eliminate the sales tax and implement an income tax - end of RV buyers crossing the border. But again, that's up to Washington to correct its own problems; Oregon has nothing to do with that.
Max
Fuck that. It's bad enough belonging to one government, espeically the way it's been behaving lately. No bloody way I'll voluntarily join another.
Max
By no stretch of logic could you support the claim that Washington in any way subsidizes Oregon. How we tax ourselves is our business; if you were brain-dead enough to vote in a sales tax, then *you* deal with it. Your tax woes aren't our problem.
Max
Ooooh, the potential! Natalie Portman and Jessica Alba doing the wild thing, and not just 28 seconds in mid-clip with bad disco playing over the grunts and groans! Talk about the internet killer app: porn that you can create with anyone you lust after doing anything you want! Including to you!
Yeeee-eesss!
Max
If you're over the age of five, isn't the primary reason for watching the movie to indulge a lust-fest for Natalie Portman? I mean, who doesn't want a long weekend with that girl?
Max
He pointed out the financial reality that the artist pays for the work, the artist decides on the work is, they don't get any money if the work flops, etc, none of which are true in any other industry's 'work for hire'.
You don't get the point, just as he doesn't. You decided to deal with the devil, you knew the terms of the deal from the get-go, now you have to abide by those terms.
It doesn't matter if the conditions are different. Don't like them, then don't deal. Those are your choices. You don't get to decide after the fact that because you're an 'artist' you ge to renegotiate no matter how bad the initial contract. Maybe it'll teach you not to be such an idiot when signing away your soul in the first place.
Max
Well, no. I'm talking about a Corporation having rights equal to the artist (an actual human being).
If you assigned those rights in contract then yes, I do believe that. Your rights in the matter are assignable, not inalienable.
Effectivly forcing anyone who wants to sell a song into being a Record Company employee.
I'd refer you to the "Ani DiFranco" way of doing business, or the recent success of the "sell x copies and then we'll release" band web site method. Don't like the RIAA or it's band of thieves, then don't deal with them.
Programmers should have rights for thier code don't you think? No?
"No" is right if I signed away the property via contract. I've done both: assigned use of the program but not rights, and assigned rights. I full well know that I don't own the code if I go the second route; the company I contracted to owns the code and can do whatever the hell they want with it (including reselling it, making a $100 million bucks, and not cutting me a penny). Once I give away the rights the product is no longer mine. There's nothing special about artistic endeavor.
Like I said, I don't like the RIAA and think their tactics reek of the near-evil. But I do not think that 'artists', just because they claim to belong to this group, should get any special consideration for what they do. Contract law applies across the board to everyone regardless of the output; you sign away your rights, too bad for you. There's nothing special about a musician as compared to a programmer, nor is there anything inherently more noteworthy about the musician's output.
Max
It did indeed happen. It was common knowledge at the time that it happened because RMS made something of a stink about the fact that Linus blew him off. I believe the page number for the reference is 133 in "Just For Fun", but I don't have it here in front of me so that's just a guess.
Regardless of RMS's stated position those are the actions he took concerning the Linux kernel. It appears at RMS's actions are in contradiction to his stated opinion.
Max
What bullshit. You make it sound as if the 'creative act' of doing something vaguely artistic is somehow different from any other kind of work-for-hire.
It isn't. Not legally, not ethically. Artists signing a work-for-hire contract are no more protected than I am. It doesn't matter a good goddamn if they're producing music and I'm producing codes - the law is the same. Don't like it? Don't sign the fucking contract!
Frankly, the entire argument sums up as "because I'm an artist, my output is more special than that produced by a non-artist and therefore not bound by the same laws". Crap. Your output is just the same as anyone elses and there's nothing whatsoever special about it other than the artist's own delusions.
You aren't 'forced' into any kind of agreement with a record company. You sign, you uphold your end of the bargain. Don't like it, don't sign. Do sign, shut your yap and do your job.
Max
Yes, he does complain about it. He told Linus ("Just For Fun") that the kernel should be called GNU/Linux because Linus used some free software tools (e.g., gcc) to create it. This is a matter of record, and not just in Linus's autobiography.
He wasn't referring to any bundled distribution, just the Linux kernel itself. By RMS's definition, anyone creating any software which might remotely be connected to an FSF tool, like the aforementioned gcc, should put "GNU" in front of the name.
Max
It is in the interest of all of us creative types to have it reinforced that the US Constitution requires that copyright go to authors
What crack are you smoking? The Constitution requires no such thing.
And please explain to me why you 'creative types' should have more rights to what is obviously "work for hire" (you sign the contract, after all) than I do when I write original code under the same type of contract.
Or perhaps your standards only apply to whatever subset of "creative people" you personally define?
Max
Can anyone explain to me how a court of law can find a giant monopolistic music/entertainment/whatever it's bought recently company can be granted the rights to music over the artist who wrote it?
Can anyone explain to me how a court of law can find a giant monopolistic software/operating system/whatever it's bought recently company can be granted the rights to the code over the programmers who wrote it?
No, wait, that happens all the time...it's called work for hire.
Can anyone tell me why a so-called 'artist' who signs a contract transferring song rights to companies is somehow more oppressed than I am when it comes to coding under the same conditions? Jesus H. Christ....
Max
Let's also take into account that it's a common slashdot misconception that deriding popular music and parroting idiotic phrases like "indy music roolz, dood!" somehow makes one intellectually superior to those folks who actually prefer the music of Britney Spears or Mandy Moore, or whoever is at the top of the charts at the moment. There's a double-standard here that those who praise independent music or small-time artists are fans of 'real' music, while those who like pop bands are just blind sheep being herded along by the RIAA.
Of course, anyone who examines this in an objective fashion for more than 30 seconds will readily see that this is nothing more than a crock of egotistical bullshit wallowed in by pseudo-intellectual pricks looking for an easy, slash-dot-approved target. Talk about sheep begging for the easy back-pat.
I don't like the RIAA or its tactics. This doesn't mean that I'm going to mindlessly mimic Joe College Student in his arrogant claims about the people who listen to pop music being drones, or support him when he raves about how much 'better' indy music is over the Top 40. When he does this, Joe College Student is nothing more than a fucking asshole pulling his own pud to puff up his ego.
Whether or not you like Britney Spears, or Mandy Moore, or whoever doesn't define intellect or musical aptitude, but simply taste. That is *all*. Some people have a taste for these folks and some don't. To say that one person's taste is somehow 'more refined' than another's is a game for nasty little children whose mothers should've slapped them upside the head more often.
Max
Hey, buddy. Everything we need to know about the word 'jihad' was explained to us by Frank Herbert in the "Dune" series. Don't confuse people with facts.
Max
I suppose if you define the givers as only coders. But if you define those who participate as anyone who downloads the code, discovers bugs or problems and reports back to the developers on these things then I'd say the 'givers' are quite a bit larger than this tiny subset.
Not to mention the folks who maintain web sites, mailing lists, mirrors, etc. A large number of folks contribute according to their ability and inclination, which is precisely the idea behind open source in the first place.
Max
Yet another brain-dead idea from Idiots Anonymous. What's amazing is how many people think that this is even remotely sensible.
Yeah...pay for every page. If you want to go ahead - subscribe to web sites that you want to pay for. But don't think you're going to involve me or my credit card in this moronic scheme.
Max
Works for me! Think: I've always wanted to have a little 'quality time' with Christina Aguilera, but am enough of a realist to know that it won't happen in this universe.
Unless, of course, I BUILD HER....
;-)
Max