When describing dating, I like the line my old RUF minister used.

Dating is getting to know someone for the purposes of finding a spouse.

What makes dating so weird is that it isn’t defined in the Bible anywhere. There’s single, betrothed, and married. Dating is… in between single and betrothed, I think. Two people are in a serious, exclusive relationship but aren’t making a formal commitment yet.

It’s that lack of formal commitment that irks me. While two people are still getting to know each other, that freedom is important. To know that if an insurmountable issue comes along one is free to leave is necessary in the early stages of a relationship. Both parties are in the relationship by choice, not by coercion.

It’s when there are no more insurmountable issues that things become problematic. When both parties have confessed their darkest secrets and are still able to be with each other. When any pet peeve or political difference is insignificant next to the other’s good character or sense of awesome music. When any intentional or accidental injury is overcome by an ability to forgive that is itself brought on by being forgiven of much more. When both parties are so invested in the relationship, commitment is required.

At this point, the relationship is on shaky ground. While both members may fully intend to stay in the relationship, there is very little to insure those intentions become actions. There is no formal commitment holding the relationship together; both parties are in the relationship by choice. For some, this is enough.

But not me.

My friends, I am hereby swearing off dating. Forever. I can no longer allow myself to invest in a relationship without a sure future, and I cannot ask the other to remain in this relationship with us separated by 200 miles and only the vaguest promise of one day returning for a weekend. It is not worth my time or hers in a relationship with no sure future.

That’s why we’re making it a sure future.

And she said yes.

I’m going to have to agree with John Gruber’s assessment of Richard Stallman’s latest essay:

I waver between rolling my eyes at Stallman’s kookiness and admiring his singleminded determination.

In my case, however¹, Stallman’s kookiness extends to a large portion of the Free Software Foundation’s philosophies. Above all else, the FSF champions the right to modify and redistribute software. I have no problem with this goal as I will often promote a free or open source program (which apparently are not the same) when it is a viable alternative to a commercial program. I use WordPress instead of ExpressionEngine. I use The GIMP instead of Photoshop. But I use Safari instead of Firefox because I find Safari to be faster on my Mac. In my case, I am willing to give up a “freedom” that I don’t really use (the ability to modify the source code) in exchange for a more pleasant computing experience.

It is Richard Stallman’s opinion on creative works that I find unacceptable². Never mind that because not all Creative Commons licenses are free he refuses to endorse any of them (he, of course, suggests the GPL). What is dangerous is that he equates creative works such as movies and music with information and file sharing with the general term “sharing.” In doing so, Stallman shows his background as a computer scientist. A program is written to solve a problem; the FSF’s arguments that there are more benefits to releasing the source are valid here largely because the program can benefit from the scientific method. Information wants to be free, and the solution to the problem (the program) is simply another form of information.

A creative work, however, is not simply information. It does not consist of simple facts or present a solution to an established problem. It is, when done properly, a reflection of the author or artist’s heart. It can be anything from a commentary on society to a rewrite of a poorly done movie to an attempt to reconcile temporal existence with eternal life. As such, creative works cannot be held to the same standards as computer programs, and vice versa.

Equating creative works to information reduces the author’s creative expression to its digital format, an act of language that cheapens the work even more than the term content. And distributing digital creative works over file sharing is not simply sharing, it is copying. Like anything distributed over the internet, the digital information is copied, not moved, from one computer to another. Loaning a CD or a book to a friend is sharing, since while one is in possession of it the other is not. File sharing creates copies, so that both are in possession at the same time. While not necessarily the same as theft, this cannot, by any reasonable definition, be considered sharing.

This is not to say I am against file sharing as a whole. There are hundreds of out-of-print and hard-to-find works that can benefit from file sharing in order to preserve their value to society. Also, it can be used by lesser known artists to encourage the viral word-of-mouth growth that is essential to growing a fanbase. This is the aim of Creative Commons, and I am disappointed that a man committed to “freedom” refuses to acknowledge the benefits of such a system.

¹ John Gruber may agree with me, but I won’t presume to speak for him.

² Yes, it’s a Wayback Machine link. The post as linked from the original slashdot article no longer exists.

This particular crisis was instigated by the realization that I’m spending a third of my time on a project that isn’t mine. I knew that going in. That’s what comes with any job where you aren’t self-employed. Duh. I figured I’d make up for it with my spare time projects like I had been doing in college. For a while I did that, and I managed to get my album out the door in the process. And then it stopped.

Normally around this point I’d say something to the effect of ‘I have no idea why I stopped.’ But now I do. See, I’ve finally realized that I work best creatively in a clean environment. And my room is a mess. But logically it makes sense. Why does my room get in a mess? Because I don’t feel like I have the energy to put things in their proper place. In other words, if my life is a mess, my room is a mess. So if my room is a mess, I feel like my life is a mess and therefore cannot focus my creative energy appropriately.

Right now, my room is a mess. That’s about to change. Brittany, hold me to that.

[via TUAW]

oddEvan intro

2008 ended and 2009 began with me and the woman in Charleston preceded and followed by trips to Greenville. From the time I got to Greenville by myself to the time I left Greenville by myself we were in the same building/area (except for 15 min. where I drove my mom somewhere). Constant company. I had typed up most of a blog post on the ramifications of this… but I eated it¹. Suffice it to say… In some relationships the people are growing away from each other. Ours is not one of those.

I still have my dreams of turning this into a site worthy of being called a Daring Fireball knock-off, but I can’t seem to pull myself away from Sonic Unleashed long enough to do that. Or edit those videos.

The good news, though, is madcrasher.com is finally in some semblance of order (though not done) and the new CD Identity is not only available from CD Baby but also iTunes! So go buy it…

I’m going to try to have some sort of well-thought-out blog post once a week here. Key word is try. I make no promises.

¹ Actually, I couldn’t form a clear main idea out of the shambles of my emotions. What I could come up with wasn’t really suitable for this blog. Yes, there is stuff about myself that isn’t on the internet, and it will stay off the internet.

[ found via @gruber ]