As nice of a plan that is, it's still inevitable... there's just a couple less people supporting the big corporations. There's still millions and millions supporting their own doom.
Errata... "However, 90% of the market is controlled by one car company." should read "However, 90% of the market is NOT controlled by one car company."
Most of your points are all really aimed at how programs interact with the OS... nothing to do with the issues surrounding the initial bundling. So I'll just respond carefully...
Isn't WMP integrated into Explorer? I've seen cases where there's a preview in the web view (I never use it, but some people do).
I enjoy WMP to be honest (for videos). I've never tried to remove it so I won't speak about that. I've tried to remove Windows Messenger though. That's one annoying little program that I never wanted. As for IE, it's still there, even though Firebird is defaulted to everything web related... can't delete it, wasting up space (which isn't exactly in demand) and memory (it's preloaded into the system, or so Mozilla tells me when it asks if I want to leave Mozilla running at all times so it can load up as fast as IE).
Hell, even the linux distros I've used come bundled with media players and web browsers and the like. In RedHat if you choose a typical workstation setup, you got them installed. Sure there was alternatives, but most people stick with one anyway.
Most users - as someone earlier said - are afraid to do much with their OSes because os sheer stupidity. I think Microsoft is correct in installing several applications to improve the users' experience (being able to play media out of the box is important). Nothing's preventing them from installing something else.
Excellent points. However, with many of those same distros can be stripped of those web browers and media players with ease. Ever try removing IE? Not exactly easy, is it? If I could remove IE with ease, kill MSN Messenger for sure, and strip Windows until it's bare of everything but just the kernel, I think I'd be pretty happy. But that's not possible. Bundling is great, just don't force the bundles to stay for good.
Actually I've been trying to find a car these days, and you're absolutely correct. However, 90% of the market is controlled by one car company. If I don't want onstar, I'll leave GM. It's that simple.
Anyways, the analogy was flawed from the beginning. Your response should've have not been aimed at me.
Although I really don't want to be drawn into a type of argument that is no doubt being mirrored in many threads for this news post alone..
I believe a couple points must be repeated, one is that MS believes IE and Windows cannot be removed. They even showed this case. The second point is that you cannot completely remove such components from the OS, even though they are addons (unlike similar distributions such as linix ones)... thus they are blurring the line between OS and applications.
I'm not sure what begging the question means, my apologizes as such, english is my second language. As well, I'm not sure how I'm using the strawman tactic. If you would point that out, I will gladly respond.
Finally, I admit I spelt arbiter wrong, I only read your post before responding to that (a couple degrees of seperation away), so I guess I should have double checked. The meanings are similar, fortunately. No big deal.
However, MS has a controlling command of what an OS is. They produce an operating system and blur the original standards. Because of its widespread use, these new standards become the norm. I understand the point you are trying to make, that they should be able to sell whatever they want. But you must see that by controlling such a huge market share, they can very well bump off all competition for previously standalone applications!
I'm getting off topic, so I'll just reiterate my point. MS -is- redefining the standards. Even if you refuse to believe it, many people think IE is Windows. Even though a internet browser has never been part of an OS, MS has redefined the standard and says "yes it is, look, windows doesn't work without it".
Different car, different company. Tough to do when MS is 90% of the PC market though, isn't it? Different world, different ways to handle it.
No, I'm not the "world's arbiter". Apparently, MS is, because of their giant market share. So they'll redefine the word with every new version, and you'll nod your head and agree. Your point has been taken.
Actually, AC is always an option for most cars. Most sedans and compacts for sure (Toyota, Honda, even Mazda's new Madza3), I don't have the money for a big SUV or Van (and I don't need one), so I don't know about those.
Anyways, you have no idea whether these things are freebees. Someone worked on IE, that software went through r&d, so there's a value on the software. You can't prove or disprove whether it's adding to the bottom line of those huge Windows License costs.
Anyways, for your last engine comment. That is definitely true, since my car runs without A/C, I'm assuming A/C is added to the engine and requires engine to run thus changing the engine... since you pay to mod the engine at the very beginning (for quite some money I might add), I can see that you can't just remove the AC.
Point still remains, cars can be bought without A/C. As for your stereo jest, that's absolutely true, since as another said so humbly "that I'm not the arbitrator of OS standards", then I really can't argue standards. At least we both agree MP3 decks aren't basic.
A car, obviously, has a very standard set of defintions now. Your analogy fails because a car is incomplete without seats. You cannot use the car without seats.
An operating system, on the other hand, is just that. Yet they bundle all sorts of extras that you -have- to pay for.
Look at it this way. Would you buy a car that forces on you, A/C, Mp3 deck, and auto-tranmission?
Hell no, you should be able to customize and still have a working car, right? No leather cushions, no seat warms, get the mini DVD player out of my fucking car!
So, I shouldn't be paying for Media Player, IE, and all sorts of other "necessities" of the Windows "OS package". I should have the option of not paying for that software, because it's not necessary for the standards of an OS.
Just because you designed your engine to run only if there's an air conditioning unit... doesn't mean you've redefined a car.. you just fucked up your engine.
How is it that you continue to get modded up in such a fashion? With all due respect mods, this guy is a horrible plagiarizer, start modding him as such!
Want evidence? Right here. Once again, word for word with the exception of the opening statement.
As a mesage to the parent, start quoting sources if you plan on plagiarizing like this. Don't pretend it's your thoughts when it's not.
I'm going to cut right to the chase, with language experience like VB and PHP, you're not going to get much sympathy from anyone.
The first reply to you padded this nicely, I'm not going to.
Learn some languages that wouldn't get you laughed at by the majority of programmers in the world. VB is a running joke for any computer science student, much less established programmers.
And PHP's incosistencies within it's own language has it pushed into the background, only those looking for ease of use will bother with PHP. If you're going to be writing anything robust, you're better off scripting it via Perl(just as an example, cgi scripting rules and Perl was the first thing that came to mind).
I program in both VB and PHP
What a joke. You made me laugh so hard there I almost stopped reading your comment.
PS. I got karma to burn. And burn it probably will.
To be honest, I agree with you, but I believe you're dumbing down the severity of the issue (in terms of counterstrike). Public servers are the heart of the game, the first thing you play and what the general populace goes to have fun. They're not matches and they're not edge of your seat elite vs elite teams.
I think he's got a point. Servers without sniper rifles (i've seen them) are actually much more rush-orientated. There's nothing really to do, right? Just get in there and kick some ass. No one's blowing your head off before you rush around the corner and see your first enemy.
So yeah, in 'serious' gaming, perhaps CS is balanced. But on a pub, you'd probably make a far more 'fun' server by restricting sniper rifles.
Whether he made a good point or not, it seems to me that you are ignoring it and nitpicking on something that was never his point. Intentional or not, the point was manhours are being wasted. The whole performance thing and computers being idle are simply to show that "you can afford to waste a couple cycles if you can save a manhour". Nothing more.
As well, the lack of verbal agreement on your part (not even the slightest - "those are good points, but...") made you seem nitpicky, and rude.
I agree your point is valid, if the poster meant it that way. However, it was merely an aside to help out the whole manhours issue.
Again, read the entire post. If you have omit words within his sentences while quoting, you're taking it out of context. Think twice before complaining.
Next time you grab a keyboard, I look forward to a great post from you. Have a fantastic Friday.
Wow. By quoting using [...], you managed to completely make yourself LOOK like you have a point. Here, let me quote him completely for you.
Open Source developers still hug C and hate most anything running in any other safer languages because of performance. Despite it actually costing more man hours to manually go out and install new versions of SSH, bind, sendmail, etc. every 3 months, for some odd reason open source developers value cpu clock cycles on a machine that sits idle 99% of the time more than an actual person that can hardly find 5 minutes, and usually admins so many computers it turns into an all-nighter.
Notice the point is that it requires MANUAL work? He's not saying the programs don't have to be fast. Just don't sacrifice simple automation for optimization! Don't force businesses and people to put in manhours when they don't have to!
Next time, read the entire thing, quote the entire thing, then start writing. Maybe you'll come to understand his point and not need someone to hold your hand.
The electrons, which are fermions, join up to make cooper pairs, which are bosons and thus not constrained to the pauli exclusion principle. But this happens in superconductors?? In a superfluid it would be the fermionic atom, like Helium-3 that would form the cooper pairs.
But Heluim-4 is a boson, so why does this even matter for a superfluid??
I was attempting to use laymen terms in order to explain superconductivity. Cooper-pairs are the basis of superconductivity, as at that point they have an 'overall' spin of 0, which allows them to share similar energy states. Last I remember, bosons are a way of organizing a type of subatomic particle, not the basis for superconductivity or superfluid...ity. (Ugh, what a crappy word)
The energy states are nondegenerate???? I highly doubt that.
You sound highly annoyed, almost like a troll. You also sound quite intellectual, which leads me to question why you would not realize that the principle behind superconductivity is that cooper-pairs can share similar quantum states. In fact, iirc, all the electron pairs in superconductors will be sharing both the same wave function and the same quantum numbers.
I can't parse the logic here. Suffice to say, The condensate has a single, macroscopic wave function.
Basically, yes. And if the wave function is inclined to tunnel through solid matter, everything (with the same function) will tunnel through solid matter. See Electron Tunneling. ^_^
As for your final points, the poster didn't imply anything like that. I just tried to parse what he said and came up with my own opinions. As you quoted, and as I wrote, "This might theoretically be possible, for it to be both superconductive and superfluid, but I do not think such criteria are actually proven as facts...". This implies I was adding my own opinion, just like you added yours. This isn't my field either, I was just having fun and thinking about the possibilities.
Finally, my question to you. Why would positrons have anything to do with this? Seriously, I don't see why they're important at all in a superconduct/fluid.
A shared quantum state is one where every electron shares a similar wave equation. This allows for the escape of many so called 'rules' of quantum physics, most importantly, the principle that prevents more than one electron from sharing the same energy state.
Since 4He allows for superfluid behaviour, the only possible explanation for 0-viscosity (or so we believe) is that every particle within the condensate is actually sharing the same wave equation.
Given that particles are sharing the exact same wave equation, they are, in fact, the same particle. Since particle positioning cannot be determined without sacrificing determination of movement, then such particles could (and do) tunnel through solid matter.
I find it difficult to understand your last words... "through a low-temperature mash of helium atoms with zero electrical resistance". Resistivity is a property of electron collisions... although I do believe it makes sense if you mean that the helium mesh is -already- a superconductive state. This might theoretically be possible, for it to be both superconductive and superfluid, but I do not think such criteria are actually proven as facts... yet.
I hope I managed to explain some of the facts for you.
That's what I always thought the ultimate Babylon 5 mod would be based off of. Source code got released a while back and Freespace 2 is bloody amazing. All its weapons seem like they fit B5 perfectly.
Well you've convinced me on your main point. I fully agree with you there, and all other arguments and points I disagree with are mere segways from the main point.
Though I must say, the way we view albums and songs will change, just as the medium changes. Your way of seeing albums will also have to change. People want individual songs, and nothing an artist says can change that.
The difficulty here is that the majority of artists don't see things the way you do. They -do- release songs in the form of singles, which are acceptable on their own (from both the artist and listener standpoint). Artists -allow- radio stations to just play their songs, and I have yet to even hear of a radio station that plays an entire album.
You see, the world itself revolves around the song being the smallest denomination. You can't really say otherwise. The Single is the crowning point of my argument. It exists to disprove any attempt to say that the song -isn't- the smallest denomination. And so it follows that since the song -is- the smallest denomination, you can take it by itself.
Continuing the analogies, the book, the painting, these are all accepted as the smallest denomination. In your section analogy, this does actually hold true for reference books. However, it falls apart for stories or any other book in which chapter 1 is based on chapter 2 (quite obviously too). No one would say Chapter 3 is acceptable to be read on its own, because you would have no idea what characters are referring to (from chapter 1 or 2). However, a song can normally be interpreted alone. Unlike books (which are, sadly, easily interpreted and not very deep), songs can be heard individually without feeling like you're missing something from 2 other songs. Thus your analogy falls apart.
Although I fully understand, and respect, the way you see an album as the artist's true creation. It's just simply untrue for the majority.
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? Who cares about whether we have the right or not to take the album apart. The final blow is: The album being the true artistic intent... it's the minority. So these couple artists should just save -us- the hassle of interpreting their work poorly, and release one giant 74/80 minute track of musical wonder. No room for misinterpretation without forcably ripping sections out of the song.
Slashdot Mirror
As nice of a plan that is, it's still inevitable... there's just a couple less people supporting the big corporations. There's still millions and millions supporting their own doom.
Errata... "However, 90% of the market is controlled by one car company." should read "However, 90% of the market is NOT controlled by one car company."
Sorry
Most of your points are all really aimed at how programs interact with the OS... nothing to do with the issues surrounding the initial bundling. So I'll just respond carefully...
Isn't WMP integrated into Explorer? I've seen cases where there's a preview in the web view (I never use it, but some people do).
I enjoy WMP to be honest (for videos). I've never tried to remove it so I won't speak about that. I've tried to remove Windows Messenger though. That's one annoying little program that I never wanted. As for IE, it's still there, even though Firebird is defaulted to everything web related... can't delete it, wasting up space (which isn't exactly in demand) and memory (it's preloaded into the system, or so Mozilla tells me when it asks if I want to leave Mozilla running at all times so it can load up as fast as IE).
Hell, even the linux distros I've used come bundled with media players and web browsers and the like. In RedHat if you choose a typical workstation setup, you got them installed. Sure there was alternatives, but most people stick with one anyway.
Most users - as someone earlier said - are afraid to do much with their OSes because os sheer stupidity. I think Microsoft is correct in installing several applications to improve the users' experience (being able to play media out of the box is important). Nothing's preventing them from installing something else.
Excellent points. However, with many of those same distros can be stripped of those web browers and media players with ease. Ever try removing IE? Not exactly easy, is it? If I could remove IE with ease, kill MSN Messenger for sure, and strip Windows until it's bare of everything but just the kernel, I think I'd be pretty happy. But that's not possible. Bundling is great, just don't force the bundles to stay for good.
Actually I've been trying to find a car these days, and you're absolutely correct. However, 90% of the market is controlled by one car company. If I don't want onstar, I'll leave GM. It's that simple.
Anyways, the analogy was flawed from the beginning. Your response should've have not been aimed at me.
Thanks ^_^
Although I really don't want to be drawn into a type of argument that is no doubt being mirrored in many threads for this news post alone..
I believe a couple points must be repeated, one is that MS believes IE and Windows cannot be removed. They even showed this case. The second point is that you cannot completely remove such components from the OS, even though they are addons (unlike similar distributions such as linix ones)... thus they are blurring the line between OS and applications.
I'm not sure what begging the question means, my apologizes as such, english is my second language. As well, I'm not sure how I'm using the strawman tactic. If you would point that out, I will gladly respond.
Finally, I admit I spelt arbiter wrong, I only read your post before responding to that (a couple degrees of seperation away), so I guess I should have double checked. The meanings are similar, fortunately. No big deal.
However, MS has a controlling command of what an OS is. They produce an operating system and blur the original standards. Because of its widespread use, these new standards become the norm. I understand the point you are trying to make, that they should be able to sell whatever they want. But you must see that by controlling such a huge market share, they can very well bump off all competition for previously standalone applications!
I'm getting off topic, so I'll just reiterate my point. MS -is- redefining the standards. Even if you refuse to believe it, many people think IE is Windows. Even though a internet browser has never been part of an OS, MS has redefined the standard and says "yes it is, look, windows doesn't work without it".
Different car, different company. Tough to do when MS is 90% of the PC market though, isn't it? Different world, different ways to handle it.
No, I'm not the "world's arbiter". Apparently, MS is, because of their giant market share. So they'll redefine the word with every new version, and you'll nod your head and agree. Your point has been taken.
Actually, AC is always an option for most cars. Most sedans and compacts for sure (Toyota, Honda, even Mazda's new Madza3), I don't have the money for a big SUV or Van (and I don't need one), so I don't know about those.
Anyways, you have no idea whether these things are freebees. Someone worked on IE, that software went through r&d, so there's a value on the software. You can't prove or disprove whether it's adding to the bottom line of those huge Windows License costs.
Anyways, for your last engine comment. That is definitely true, since my car runs without A/C, I'm assuming A/C is added to the engine and requires engine to run thus changing the engine... since you pay to mod the engine at the very beginning (for quite some money I might add), I can see that you can't just remove the AC.
Point still remains, cars can be bought without A/C. As for your stereo jest, that's absolutely true, since as another said so humbly "that I'm not the arbitrator of OS standards", then I really can't argue standards. At least we both agree MP3 decks aren't basic.
A car, obviously, has a very standard set of defintions now. Your analogy fails because a car is incomplete without seats. You cannot use the car without seats.
An operating system, on the other hand, is just that. Yet they bundle all sorts of extras that you -have- to pay for.
Look at it this way. Would you buy a car that forces on you, A/C, Mp3 deck, and auto-tranmission?
Hell no, you should be able to customize and still have a working car, right? No leather cushions, no seat warms, get the mini DVD player out of my fucking car!
So, I shouldn't be paying for Media Player, IE, and all sorts of other "necessities" of the Windows "OS package". I should have the option of not paying for that software, because it's not necessary for the standards of an OS.
Just because you designed your engine to run only if there's an air conditioning unit... doesn't mean you've redefined a car.. you just fucked up your engine.
How is it that you continue to get modded up in such a fashion? With all due respect mods, this guy is a horrible plagiarizer, start modding him as such!
Want evidence? Right here. Once again, word for word with the exception of the opening statement.
As a mesage to the parent, start quoting sources if you plan on plagiarizing like this. Don't pretend it's your thoughts when it's not.
I'm going to cut right to the chase, with language experience like VB and PHP, you're not going to get much sympathy from anyone.
The first reply to you padded this nicely, I'm not going to.
Learn some languages that wouldn't get you laughed at by the majority of programmers in the world. VB is a running joke for any computer science student, much less established programmers.
And PHP's incosistencies within it's own language has it pushed into the background, only those looking for ease of use will bother with PHP. If you're going to be writing anything robust, you're better off scripting it via Perl(just as an example, cgi scripting rules and Perl was the first thing that came to mind).
I program in both VB and PHP
What a joke. You made me laugh so hard there I almost stopped reading your comment.
PS. I got karma to burn. And burn it probably will.
To be honest, I agree with you, but I believe you're dumbing down the severity of the issue (in terms of counterstrike). Public servers are the heart of the game, the first thing you play and what the general populace goes to have fun. They're not matches and they're not edge of your seat elite vs elite teams.
I think he's got a point. Servers without sniper rifles (i've seen them) are actually much more rush-orientated. There's nothing really to do, right? Just get in there and kick some ass. No one's blowing your head off before you rush around the corner and see your first enemy.
So yeah, in 'serious' gaming, perhaps CS is balanced. But on a pub, you'd probably make a far more 'fun' server by restricting sniper rifles.
Perhaps you you refer to my post to the parent? He copied it straight from here under the heading "Is Elliptic Curve Cryptography Safe?"
Impressive, your entire paragraphs were, word for word, copied from here
Alert, Karma whore. The only thing he changed was "You may have heard arguments" to " I often hear".
You often plagerize?
Whether he made a good point or not, it seems to me that you are ignoring it and nitpicking on something that was never his point. Intentional or not, the point was manhours are being wasted. The whole performance thing and computers being idle are simply to show that "you can afford to waste a couple cycles if you can save a manhour". Nothing more.
As well, the lack of verbal agreement on your part (not even the slightest - "those are good points, but...") made you seem nitpicky, and rude.
I agree your point is valid, if the poster meant it that way. However, it was merely an aside to help out the whole manhours issue.
Again, read the entire post. If you have omit words within his sentences while quoting, you're taking it out of context. Think twice before complaining.
Next time you grab a keyboard, I look forward to a great post from you. Have a fantastic Friday.
Wow. By quoting using [...], you managed to completely make yourself LOOK like you have a point. Here, let me quote him completely for you.
Open Source developers still hug C and hate most anything running in any other safer languages because of performance. Despite it actually costing more man hours to manually go out and install new versions of SSH, bind, sendmail, etc. every 3 months, for some odd reason open source developers value cpu clock cycles on a machine that sits idle 99% of the time more than an actual person that can hardly find 5 minutes, and usually admins so many computers it turns into an all-nighter.
Notice the point is that it requires MANUAL work? He's not saying the programs don't have to be fast. Just don't sacrifice simple automation for optimization! Don't force businesses and people to put in manhours when they don't have to!
Next time, read the entire thing, quote the entire thing, then start writing. Maybe you'll come to understand his point and not need someone to hold your hand.
The electrons, which are fermions, join up to make cooper pairs, which are bosons and thus not constrained to the pauli exclusion principle. But this happens in superconductors?? In a superfluid it would be the fermionic atom, like Helium-3 that would form the cooper pairs. But Heluim-4 is a boson, so why does this even matter for a superfluid??
I was attempting to use laymen terms in order to explain superconductivity. Cooper-pairs are the basis of superconductivity, as at that point they have an 'overall' spin of 0, which allows them to share similar energy states. Last I remember, bosons are a way of organizing a type of subatomic particle, not the basis for superconductivity or superfluid...ity. (Ugh, what a crappy word)
The energy states are nondegenerate???? I highly doubt that.
You sound highly annoyed, almost like a troll. You also sound quite intellectual, which leads me to question why you would not realize that the principle behind superconductivity is that cooper-pairs can share similar quantum states. In fact, iirc, all the electron pairs in superconductors will be sharing both the same wave function and the same quantum numbers.
I can't parse the logic here. Suffice to say, The condensate has a single, macroscopic wave function.
Basically, yes. And if the wave function is inclined to tunnel through solid matter, everything (with the same function) will tunnel through solid matter. See Electron Tunneling. ^_^
As for your final points, the poster didn't imply anything like that. I just tried to parse what he said and came up with my own opinions. As you quoted, and as I wrote, "This might theoretically be possible, for it to be both superconductive and superfluid, but I do not think such criteria are actually proven as facts...". This implies I was adding my own opinion, just like you added yours. This isn't my field either, I was just having fun and thinking about the possibilities.
Finally, my question to you. Why would positrons have anything to do with this? Seriously, I don't see why they're important at all in a superconduct/fluid.
A shared quantum state is one where every electron shares a similar wave equation. This allows for the escape of many so called 'rules' of quantum physics, most importantly, the principle that prevents more than one electron from sharing the same energy state.
Since 4He allows for superfluid behaviour, the only possible explanation for 0-viscosity (or so we believe) is that every particle within the condensate is actually sharing the same wave equation.
Given that particles are sharing the exact same wave equation, they are, in fact, the same particle. Since particle positioning cannot be determined without sacrificing determination of movement, then such particles could (and do) tunnel through solid matter.
I find it difficult to understand your last words... "through a low-temperature mash of helium atoms with zero electrical resistance". Resistivity is a property of electron collisions... although I do believe it makes sense if you mean that the helium mesh is -already- a superconductive state. This might theoretically be possible, for it to be both superconductive and superfluid, but I do not think such criteria are actually proven as facts... yet.
I hope I managed to explain some of the facts for you.
Uhm... as far as I recall, Linksys is a division of Cisco.
Is pretty simple... extra cost.
The progress of technology... people want polygons now, and game companys give them polygons =/
On the bright side, not all games can be given another axis to move around in (2-d fighters), hurrah for SNK vs Capcom.
That's what I always thought the ultimate Babylon 5 mod would be based off of. Source code got released a while back and Freespace 2 is bloody amazing. All its weapons seem like they fit B5 perfectly.
Well you've convinced me on your main point. I fully agree with you there, and all other arguments and points I disagree with are mere segways from the main point.
Though I must say, the way we view albums and songs will change, just as the medium changes. Your way of seeing albums will also have to change. People want individual songs, and nothing an artist says can change that.
The difficulty here is that the majority of artists don't see things the way you do. They -do- release songs in the form of singles, which are acceptable on their own (from both the artist and listener standpoint). Artists -allow- radio stations to just play their songs, and I have yet to even hear of a radio station that plays an entire album.
You see, the world itself revolves around the song being the smallest denomination. You can't really say otherwise. The Single is the crowning point of my argument. It exists to disprove any attempt to say that the song -isn't- the smallest denomination. And so it follows that since the song -is- the smallest denomination, you can take it by itself.
Continuing the analogies, the book, the painting, these are all accepted as the smallest denomination. In your section analogy, this does actually hold true for reference books. However, it falls apart for stories or any other book in which chapter 1 is based on chapter 2 (quite obviously too). No one would say Chapter 3 is acceptable to be read on its own, because you would have no idea what characters are referring to (from chapter 1 or 2). However, a song can normally be interpreted alone. Unlike books (which are, sadly, easily interpreted and not very deep), songs can be heard individually without feeling like you're missing something from 2 other songs. Thus your analogy falls apart.
Although I fully understand, and respect, the way you see an album as the artist's true creation. It's just simply untrue for the majority.
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? Who cares about whether we have the right or not to take the album apart. The final blow is: The album being the true artistic intent... it's the minority. So these couple artists should just save -us- the hassle of interpreting their work poorly, and release one giant 74/80 minute track of musical wonder. No room for misinterpretation without forcably ripping sections out of the song.
This is the keyboard that's so heavy and thick you can use it defensively like a bat, isn't it? =)