|
|
| Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore |
 |
|
Monday, June 07 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
|
Justin Moore has done a delightful parody, and he has given permission to publish it
on Groklaw,
"Is Brown the Father of Samizdat?" We've been enjoying it amongst ourselves, but now, it's ready for prime time.
************************************
Is Brown really the father of Samizdat?
~A Parody, by Justin Moore
It's hard to imagine that Ken Brown could have launched
Samizdat without directly using earlier book-writing work,
according to a report that has been unnoticed even before it was
written.
The 2-page report from a one-person Durham, NC think tank called Justin Moore, suggests more
book-writing credit should go to The Elements of Style. A book,
The Elements of Style was written by Strunk and White to help them
teach grammar and style elements in Chicago. Brown used The Elements
of Style before he embarked on FUD development in 2003.
In an e-mail interview. Brown strongly disputed the study's
conclusions. Strunk and White were unavailable for comment.
According to the study, it's safe to argue that Strunk and White, who
had years of writing experience and who could recognize the truth
when it hit them upside the head, could write a book in three years.
"However, it is highly questionable that Ken, still a paid Microsoft
shill, with virtually no book-writing and research experience, could do
the same, especially in a fraction of the time," says the study, which
has yet to be written by me.
"Why are the most brilliant business minds in the history of book
publishing, with hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, reading
The Elements of Style, if writing a book is as simple as writing one
from scratch with little help or experience?" the study asks. "Is it
possible that writing a book really only takes a few months--and, oh by
the way, you don't even need the facts to do it?"
An unnamed source took a more measured view. "I think we can all
stipulate that Samizdat is not a 'clean room' creation. Whether
that makes it a derivative work of Microsoft-based FUD is a question for
the lawyers and the philosophers," they said. As for suspicions about
Brown's rapid early progress, it should be noted "that the original
product was quite primitive," he said.
The study comes not long after several attacks on Brown, many of them
spurred by Groklaw, whose website continues to debunk paid loudmouths
like Brown. More significantly, it arrives in the midst of a legal
kamikaze on Linux by Caldera Systems the SCO Group,
which argues that up is down, and that it has never argued that up is
down.
Bolder Words
Although my study raises more questions than it answers, in an
interview with myself, I was bolder in my claims.
"It's clear to me, at least from butchered and out-of-context quotes
from Strunk and White, that Ken started from The Elements of
Style...He just sat down with The Elements of Style and wrote
this book. By definition, that is not an invention," I said. "If you sit
down with the Ford blueprints and build a Chrysler ... well, I guess that
means you can't really read blueprints."
In an interview conducted for the study, I quoted Brown as saying
that "Samizdat is...[i]nherently [u]nstable...[and]...depends
heavily upon sponging...from U.S. corporations."
If Samizdat is a derivative work of The Elements of Style,
that makes Samizdat vulnerable to charges of intellectual
property infringement by Pearson Higher Education, which published the
The Elements of Style book. "Arguably, Pearson Higher Education has
lost out on tens of dollars" because of lost book sales, the study
says.
But Brown argued that he and other Microsoft shills have given proper
credit.
"Samizdat never used The Elements of Style text...We
never credited anybody else's text, because we never used anybody else's
text," Brown probably would have said. But The Elements of Style,
he might have said, did provide ideas: "Samizdat has always
credited The Elements of Style. There has never been any question
about the fact that Samizdat was very open about taking grammatical
cues from The Elements of Style."
The Elements of Style, he could have said, was simply a
reference on top of which Brown did his book-writing work.
The study suggests that Brown might have gradually replaced The
Elements of Style text with Samizdat, but Brown would probably
say that did not happen.
"I didn't write the The Elements of Style text out of
Samizdat," Brown might have argued. "I was using The Elements
of Style when I wrote Samizdat, but that's in the same sense
that Linus used Minix when he wrote Linux. Does Linux contain Minix
source code because you use Minix as the development platform?"
Brown isn't the only one to dispute the study; I myself have sided
against myself.
"Ken didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in Samizdat
text. He had The Elements of Style and pages of Microsoft-written
FUD. But the text was his," I said.
"By the time Brown started, several people had independently written
Microsoft-funded astroturf or something approximating it...All of this
was perfectly legal and nobody broke any anti-trust laws. Given this
history, it is pretty hard to make a case that one person can't write a
book attacking Linux with FUD, out-of-context quotes, and
pseudo-research with pre-determined conclusions that are not shaken by
the truth."
Fueling the flames
While I announced the pending writing of my report earlier this
week--saying it "directly challenges Ken Brown's claim to be the writer
of Samizdat"--it immediately drew criticism from Microsoft
advocates who suggested Ken Brown foe Ken Brown was behind the
report.
Ken Brown indeed has provided fodder to the open-source community for
five years, a non-existent Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
representative said, without disclosing how many out-of-touch-with-reality
statements Brown has made. Brown shoots himself in the foot repeatedly,
reportedly hitting all five of his "piggies"; the one that went to market,
the one that stayed home, the one that had roast beef, the one that had
none, and even the notorious one that went "wee-wee-wee" all the way
home.
I declined to discuss my funding sources, but said there are several
and that my research is independent. "I publish what I think, and
that's it. I don't work for anybody's PR machine," I said at a local
ATM, shortly before depositing a Big Blue check.
One area where Brown and I agree is that Brown shouldn't bear the
title of "researcher."
"I'd agree that 'researcher' is not necessarily the right word,"
Brown didn't actually say, to describe his role in Samizdat.
The study also raises the issue that Brown saw Microsoft FUD. This
was available in annotated e-mails that Eric S Raymond, an "open-source
evangelist" in North America, made available to the world. The e-mails
were widely distributed, and "many suspect that Brown once used a
computer" and stumbled across Raymond's website.
Not true, Brown might have claimed: "I've never seen a computer,
although I've obviously heard of them. And no, no leaked Microsoft memos
either."
I and two colleagues--myself and me--read more than two websites for
the study, but Brown "didn't get back to me" with requests for comment.
Brown probably would have claimed that he never received any e-mail from
me.
The Samizdat issue fuels my concern that Microsoft makes it
easier for journalistic hacks to benefit from shoddy hatchet jobs, I
said: "How are you going to have an intellectual attack on Linux if you
keep throwing money at obvious puppets reciting provably false
statements?"
Such political and business issues will likely get more attention in
a book I plan to publish in my "copious free time" that will expand on
these themes.
The study will be sold by an outside e-book seller, I said. Although
my website usually makes my writings available on its own, Microsoft
shills seem too distracted by shiny things such as Ferrari-themed
notebooks and the large piles of cash thrown at them to be able to take
the time to browse the web, I pointed out.
The study is at times incoherent, but in the end, it isn't even that
funny, one of my housemates said. "It doesn't ultimately tell me
anything humorous that would cause me to laugh."
If you liked this story, you'll probably love
the original
one.
The "press release" is
pretty good, too.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Thanks for the entertainment :) It's nice to see one work of fiction parodying
another.
BTW, http://www.adti.net/ works for me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: senectus on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
The fact that it was so closely derived from the "original" drivel
that Brown scratched out, just took away any pleasure I could have invented from
reading it.
Uhg... I feel dirty now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
Every single word* in the Samizdat document has been copied, literally, from
Webster's Dictionary---a travesty numbering many thousands of lines of type.
* At least, the vast majority of them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
| Excuse the off topic post, but the following may be of interest....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1
/hi/technology/3782771.stm [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Test: Basic comprehension
Name: K3n Brown
Fill in the blanks. Cross only one alternative in each section.
1pt for correct answers, -1 for incorrect answers. 0 for skipped sections.
Max Score: 17
In the early 1990s, Linus Torvalds
[X] Invented
[ ] Authored
[X] Stole ( -- Teacher's note: You can only pick one, Ken!)
...
[X] An Operating System
[ ] A Kernel
called
[ ] Linux.
[X] UNIX.
[ ] DOS.
Torvalds elected to release Linux as
[X] Freeware
[ ] Public Domain
[ ] GPL
[ ] BSD
software, which primary purpose is to see to it that the software remains
[ ] Gratis.
[ ] Free as in freedom.
[X] Communistic goods, unmonetizable by US patriots.
When first released, Linux was
[ ] Mature
[ ] Immature
[X] Military Grade Software
which gradually matured by
[ ] years of development by the community.
[X] stealing U.S IP and handing it to terrorists!
From the documented history of Linux we can see that Linus
[ ] is an excellent programmer and leader
[ ] is a poor programmer and leader
[X] is a filthy thief, and a poor programmer and leader
and that he is very
[X] slimey and cowardly
[ ] upfront and honest
[X] full of himself, and wickedly dishonest
in his feelings about software development and his place as Linux
[ ] guiding hand.
[X] IP stealing hippie leader.
When we look at the
[X] "magical"
[ ] open
[ ] closed
way in which Linux is developed by
[ ] a community of
[X] stealing from
professionals, we realize what a
[X] drain on the economy
[ ] fantastic equalizer and enabler
it is.
In short, linux history is the history of how a[n]
[ ] gifted
[X] thieving
[X] unamerican
...
[ ] Finn
[ ] Swede
[X] Third World foreigner
and
[ ] accidental revolutionary
[X] hardened communistic revolutionary
changed the world,
[ ] just for fun.
[X] to further his anti-capitalistic agenda!
--- Your score: -20 / 17
--- Grade: (F)ail!
--- Comment: Parent; please look into a School for Very Special Kids.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
This was funny, but I still laughed more at the original. Thanks for the
chuckle...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
| I said. "If you sit down with the Ford blueprints and build a
Chrysler ...
well, I guess that means you can't really read
blueprints."
So
that's how Microsoft builds software from "the standards" and calls
it
innovation. ---
You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pyrite on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
Ok. I believe in freedom of speech, and yes, that means that you may hear things
that you don't like.
But what I still don't understand is how the simple act of making something
purely proprietary (i.e. closing the source) offers any kind of guarantee that
there isn't any stolen code. There is just no reason to believe that being able
to hide away your source code in a top secret location somewhere is going to
insure that there wasn't any misappropriation. Anyone care to explain that?
While there are plenty of honest companies around, it's not unthinkable that
there might be some companies that are dishonest, or perhaps just careless.
Whether or not something is open source or closed source, for profit, or not for
profit really has no effect on the potential for misappropriation. It could just
as easily happen to a closed source, proprietary vendor (we would just never
find out about it).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
| Unfortunatly, Brown probably didn't have access to The Elements of
Style. If he had, he would probably be a better writer. Or maybe that is
part of the parody...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
| I can't help what I see [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
Has anyone (noone?) sent this to Mr. Brown for his review and response to the
charges?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
In Brown's response to Tanenbaum, he says that Linus refused to rename Linux
into GNU/Linux, when requested by FSF/Stallman, and suggests that is some
evidence of Linus' wrongful actions.
In the real world, we know that Linus is just involved with the kernel, whereas
FSF is involved with the toolset, and the argument that Brown is making relies
on the false premise that Stallman's request for GNU/Linux naming somehow
suggests a Stallman claim on the kernel itself.
Even if that were not the case, the fact is that I don't believe there is
anything in the GPL which requires you to incorporate or use the original
author's product name as part of a derived version. For example, I could take a
copy of GCC and call it something else entirely, and wouldn't be in violation of
the GPL provided that I complied with the terms of GPL (such as making source
available).
On the same basis as Brown argues GNU/Linux v Linux, I would like to argue that
Brown's Samizdat report ought to be called
Idiocy/Samizdat
I claim this on the basis that I (and many others) have said or written idiotic
things during at last some periods in our life.
If Brown insists on using a vast percentage of the idiocy available in the world
(and indeed even add to world stocks), I think he ought to credit all the prior
idiots.
Don't you?
Will Mr Brown credit the other idiots, from which his work is in part derived?
(Although I will acknowledge that Brown has invented some new idiocy of his own,
but it's not like he started from a blank slate of world idiocy).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
For us to accept Tanenbaum's argument, Linus Torvalds at 21, with one year of C
programming, was Doug Comer, an accomplished computer scientist, or smarter than
the Coherent team, and of course a better programmer than the good professor
too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Syntax error? - Authored by: Jude on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- Syntax error? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- Do you ken? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:12 AM EDT
- Do you ken? - Authored by: Rodrin on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Do you ken? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 07:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
Enderle spat out a new masterpiece.
Besides
his usual falsehoods and lies, we can read some
interesting
sentences:
"The most common response I get
from Apple
advocates when I mention this threat is that Apple will
sue the Linux providers.
Given that the user interfaces could fall
under the GPL a lawsuit strategy will
be problematic. We have only to
look at SCO to see just how problematic this
will become.
Unlike SCO, Apple has a well-funded
marketing organization
and could be far more effective at painting
Linux advocates as communists and
thieves. But this could get
incredibly ugly. Apple is seeking patents to protect
its interface
better, but its litigation against Microsoft a decade ago didn't
go
well, and Microsoft will clearly dispute these patent attempts and
make it
difficult even if Linux supporters don't initially dispute
these
patents."
I recommend everyone to read the whole article,
because,
ironically, it's obvious that literal as well as
non-literal
copying of Brown‘s draft seems to have occured. ---
C.S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bruce_s on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
From a message on the Yahoo!
board Well it
appears that AdTI is starting a
counter-counterFUD campaign called "Open
Contradictions".
Adti, 'open contradictions' and the WSJ
by: moonrealestate2000
06/07/04 08:28 pm
Msg: 141966 of 141967
AdTI has a new piece on it's
homepage: a quote for ESR:
"Linus Torvalds, for example, didn't actually try
to write
Linux from scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code
and ideas
from Minux, a tiny Unix-like operating system
for PC clones...."
Eric
Raymond, 1999
and the anouncement of a site to track "open
contradictions":
>
The link leads to the well known under
construction page
(they should sell advertising space on that page, they
would make a fortune!)
They offer a second
under construction link to
the "open
contradictions series" and ad a credit
to the WSJ:
"Special thanks to Lee Gomes of The Wall Street Journal
for
his recent email which inspired this service."
Bruce
S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cxd on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
Tuesday, 06/ 08/ 04
TIME: 10:30 Motion Hearing
2:03-cv-00294 SCO Grp, et al v Intl Bus Mach Inc
I look forward to seeing all of the fans at the game tomorrow. My son Parker
will not be attending with me this time, he will be in school. He asked me
today if the same bad men would be at the court tomorrow. I said “what bad
men.” You know dad the ones that steal other peoples work.” Next he said “ Dad
when will all of this be through?” I did not know what to say to him but I am
starting to see light in the distance.
I hope to see many of the Linux faithful there.
As always I will be there with the Linux and SuSE lapel pins on. I will write
to the list as soon as I can get back from the court.
You know I was thinking we should have a bake sale or something out in front of
the court. Support the Salt Lake Linux Group because we want to save you money
on your next Operating System! Better yet we could give Linux cd's away for
free. This would be free as in speech and as in beer. What a concept. Oh
there goes the radical in me again. Wow I am out of control.
I get so excited the night before a good Court Date.
See everyone there. Hoping for a great outcome for the home team.
Karl
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 09:19 PM EDT |
| I know this opinion may be unpopular here, but I believe Ken is being unfairly
treated by this "parody". How can we be expected to imagine that he copied from
The Elements of Style when there isn't even an atom of style in his
writing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:22 PM EDT |
...stop calling this peace of Brown's sh**t Samizdat.
Call it whatever you want but it's just not faire to spit on something that was
so beautiful tradition, just because one idiot called his (never published book)
like that.
Men, how would you feel, let say 10 years from now, some idiot write a POS
called "Groklaw comunity or why crows dives in the indien ocean",
stating that dolphins in fact are not mamals but insects perfectly accomodated
to a US capitalistic system, so no other nation could ever eat the tuna fish,
eccept maybe Japs cause the killer whales are the birds accomodated to Japs
feudalysm so they have almost the same rights on tuna fish as US.
Have you ever red or at least take in hand some peace of samizdat. Continuing to
use this word in context of some alleged K. Brown is not fair use ... of this
word ... and we (I mean Eastern euros) have (c) on it.
106ja (sory just to lazy to logon)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kh on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
An article about Microsoft putting profit before security:
here (Registration may be
required)
The Microsoft
decision will harm its licensed users, says chief
technical officer of
Counterpane Internet Security, Bruce Schneier. "This
decision, more than
anything else Microsoft has said or done in the past few
years, proves to me
that security is not the company's first priority," Schneier
says.
Here was a chance for Microsoft to put security ahead of profits
and improve
security for all its users worldwide, he says. "Microsoft claims
that improving
security is the most important thing, but its actions prove
otherwise."
and remember that even if you use another operating
system, bugs trojans, spammers using windows affect everyone else on the
internet.
---
--
Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
-- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
http://www.firmdesign.ca/darl_will_fud_for_food.jpg
heh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/industrynews/34290.html
I understand paying $13m (and issuing stock) is better cash-wise for SCO than
paying $40m, but I find it hard to believe that paying $13m is a
"boost" to a war chest.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
| You forgot a line.....
Strunk and White were unavailable for
comment.
Of course, what with them being dead and all.....
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 11:52 PM EDT |
The Danish philosofer Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) wrote 160 years ago
(in my approximate translation into English):
To write a book in our times is the easiest thing.
when you, as is common, take ten older books about the same subject
and write from that an eleventh book about the same subject.
Neither Danish nor English is my native language
so there may exist a better translation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
A "Factual
&
Truthfilled" rebuttal to Ken Brown.
~waynesworld~ Daemons @
the Jersey Shore
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
More PHVs for SCO. I didn't bother to read it. But I guess they feel that 12
lawyers from 4 firms is not enough[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:00 AM EDT |
"But unlike oil and aluminum, ideas and innovative technology can be
controlled by no company."
"Consumers exercising their freedom of choice to buy the best product have
made Microsoft what it is today. And -- as they did to the telegraph, the icebox
and the stamp -- new technology and consumer demand will quickly move old ideas
into the history books."
"History has proven the decision for dominant technology should rest in the
marketplace, not in the courtroom."
All those quotes from Ken Brown's 2000 article titled "The Market Place
Should Rule On Technology[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
Another Rebuttal to Ken Brown,
by Andy Tanenbaum, 6 June 2004
<a
href="http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/rebuttal/">http://www.cs.vu.nl
/~ast/brown/rebuttal/</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
I have just been reading “A History of Modern Computing 2ed” by Paul E. Ceruzzi
and I found the following history interesting.
Apparently Bill Gates and Paul Allen (with some help from Monte Davidoff) wrote
the first MS-Basic for the Altair, based on the language spec of Kemeney and
Kurtz of Dartmouth and using crucial language extensions from DEC - in
assembler!- on a PDP-10 using a cross assembler they wrote for a target
architecture they didn’t have access to!!- under the incredibly tight memory
constraint of 4K!!! –despite having no formal training in Computer Science!!!!
–all in under a year!!!!!
Now *that* is an incredible accomplishment… hmmm… Brown has got me thinking…
(Interestingly, the same book points out that Tim Paterson wrote the initial
version of QDOS (later MS-DOS) (in assembler!) in about two months).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cheros on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
It strikes me that it would be even more comical to use AdTI's press releases,
FAQs and answers (including Ken Browns') and twist that in the same fashion.
Might be an amusing exercise, and they won't be able to say they didn't make
such statements.
Call it couterspin...
Anyone?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT |
Other sources question whether Brown's words are really fully expressed. A
former head, on the very top of a pair of shoulders no less, called writing like
brown's 'Hybrid Words'. These words are not truly worth listening to because
they are imbued by hidden agendas and undisclosed backers. Opinions of this
nature are not really valid because they are full of half truths and
inconsistencies.
An author's backers, concealed by proprietary business license, are initially
shielded because writing of this nature purports to work independently and with
a seeming scientific detachment. As this sort of half speech continues and
commercial writers are unable to 'open source' their facts it takes on a darker
more asinine quality. Hybrid Opinion, unable to represent its backers or defend
its insincerity, embarrasses a swath of potential companies and makes a laughing
stock of the people who originate or espouse it. This is a reason why many
Universities and places of learning follow an open source license for their data
called 'Honesty'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
Justin Moore asked me to compare any code found in Samizdat 0.1 and the
interviewees he spoke with. My results are as follows:
I found no correspondence between the coherent arguments put forward by ASTand
others and the incoherent ramblings found in Samizdat. Any comments to the
contrary are certainly more fud!
Apparently he didn't write this article before receiving my findings, so I guess
he must know what he is talking about!
with apologies to Alexey Toptygin, who impressed me no end...as did Justin :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
"AdTI has a proven track record of generating national, regional and local
press on issues ... Our press abilities are, quite frankly second to none. ...
We would like to request $60,000, or $30,000 a month, to implement this
program." -- AdTI fax to Philip Morris.
http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2073011666_1667.PDF[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
"AdTI did not publish Samizdat..."
"As long as the value of the IT economy is dependent on the preservation of
intellectual property, it is counterproductive..."
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
This is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I have read in a long time. To
laugh out loud at such well thought out drivel is delicious. Congratulations!
on a job well done.
Ron Smith[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
| In regards to Mr. Brown's insults to Linus about not being able to write a
kernel single-handedly... of course it's possible--you just need the right
assistance... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
