Um. No. Let's not overcompensate in the other direction, either.
> Reading Adam's post, I now see that he believes that
> even flapping butterfly wings might not be irrelevant,
That is correct. Butterfly wings are relevant.
> I've seen the ongoing thread since with Seth, Adam, duck contributions.
> Yes, this subject of bit-ownership is complex, and fascinating. And I think
> we all sense that it's pivotal to what it means to lead informational lives.
> The answer isn't pat, and there are many variations, including ones involving
> JoeK emailing Manny & friends some of Adam's FoRK words along with
> some lowercase commentary, which Adam then forwards to Rohit, and
> has a dilemma about the propriety of FoRKing.
Actually, I never mentioned JoeK, Mani, FoRK, or Rohit by name.
This was a hypothetical situation with people named J, M, F, and R.
Really interesting code: in reality, J spoofed the alleged email forwarding
to M. J did not really send the email to M, he just faked all the headers.
Of course, the "A" in our scenario had no idea a joke was being played on him.
And to be fair, J still sent X' to little cats D through K. Just not little
So when little cat M came in this morning to give a talk to BMW, of course
I went completely on the defensive. "What did you do this week, Adam?"
"Nothing." "Is anything wrong?" "Oh, no, everything's great."
Only now do I understand that the X' email to M was a joke. WHOOPS.
Little cat J says he did it because he wants me to be more careful about
what I say on public forums. Information wants to be free, after all.
> With every email, with every post, we effectively
> hand our disciples and friends a camera - we give them the _opportunity_ -
> not the _right, mind you - to capture our nakedness, to allow yet others
> further afield to see our private parts.
Amen to that. Someone get me some clothes...
> So, how do you know _when_ you're allowed to stand on your soapbox?
I just... know. There is no try, there is only do.
> I think that's why Adam puts 'glue' ahead of 'bits', and I agree. Glue is
> very important.
In the land of bits and clue, the person with glue is king.
> I think Adam, Ernie and Tim all misjudged what was going on with:
> >A word of advice about trying to teach a pig to play Hamlet: don't.
> >You won't get anywhere; in fact, the only thing you'll be able to do is
> >annoy the pig.
> On the contrary, I think we *did* get somewhere. Tim got annoyed,
> sure, but he also rose to the occasion. He showed us all that he can do
> precisely what I was daring him to do! I can read through the insults, and
> see that. That's why I like this post. Mind you, I still stand by pretty
> much everything I wrote in the earlier one, and I still reserve my judgement
> of what I think of Tim, (much as I'm sure he will still continue to think
> I'm an asshole ;-). Our pig *has* played Hamlet. And we've all learned
> something from him. That's why I'm taking the time to respond to this.
NEVER trick a pig into playing Hamlet. He'll become enamored with the
revenge plot and apply it to his personal life --- against you --- someday.
> For the other shoe to drop, no lengthy posts from Adam or others can suffice.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey! I resemble that statement...
> But I guess that unlike Adam, I don't believe in butterfly wings.
Chaos did kill the dinosaurs, you know.
Apparently Apple had Microsoft by the balls, if Microsoft actually had
any balls, with respect to the justice department investigation. As a
result, Microsoft did not enter this Apple deal of their own free will.
And so Jobs parlayed this into a huge public-relations coup. Really,
there's no good reason for Microsoft to have done this otherwise.
Essentially, Apple gets money and publicity, and Microsoft gets dick.
-- Dan Zimmerman