no registration means you can only claim for actual damages, having a registration causes punitive to come into play
My understanding is that without registration you can't press a copyright infringement suit at all. That's not a big deal, though, it just means you send in the registration just before you file your suit.
In the US, if you don't register within a specific time frame, you do lose the right to statutory damages.
Statutory damages are not available if the work is unpublished and the infringement began before the effective date of its registration.
Statutory damages are not available if the work is published but the infringement commenced after the first publication and before the effective date of its registration, unless registration is made within three months after the first publication.
Someone already replied about anecdotes, but I will add one that is actually generalizable to an extent.
One difference with the USPS is that they deliver to mailboxes. We once lived in a rural, mountainous area. Most people would ship packages to us via UPS. They were delivered to our home and left outside. If those packages contained food, wild animals would tear them open, and if it rained, they would get soaked. The USPS would deliver to a locked package mailbox, and leave the key in the regular mailbox, so the package was always safe.
Wikipedia, fun for the whole family. PS: they're not 'sponsored'; they don't get any money from the feds. They're given the postal equivalent of common carrier status, but only to a mailbox marked "US Mail". If you want to make your own postal service, you can go right ahead- you just can't deliver to a US Mail mailbox. Given that almost nobody's mailbox is actually marked "US Mail", practically, you CAN run a competitive service.
Nor can you deliver most letters, unless you pay the USPS. Quoting Wikipedia right back at you:
[Non-USPS delivered] letters must either cost at least the greater of $3 or twice what First Class (or Priority) mail service would cost, or they must be delivered within strict time limits or otherwise lose value. [...]
It is possible to set up a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage" if the USPS postage is paid in addition to any private postage fee that is collected.
So, either, you have to charge a lot more than the USPS, deliver within time constraints, or charge more than the USPS (or not be in the volume letter business).
You sound like a rather die-hard cynic, and not terribly willing to be see the grey in situations. As such, I don't have too much to say. Except, first I note that western hospitals grew out of the Christian care doctrine in the Roman Empire, and second, you would be very surprised at the number of things you take for granted which came about from religious sources.
In the book, a long distance transportation of Spock goes wrong (the beam is mirrored back to the ship), and a duplicate Spock is created. A lot of the book involves trying to figure out which is the "real" one in combination with solving the other issues. At one point, it is discussed that the copy was likely a mirror image. Eventually the evil one is found by noticing that he does not eat regular food, because his chirality is reversed, as the mirroring goes done to the molecular level.
How? Average lifetime of a caveman (you can't get more 'natural' than that) was about 30 years. With horrible child mortality.
That's NATURAL.
Is it? What is the natural habitat for a modern human (not a caveman)? A couple of times, children have been found that have grown up without contact with any humans or human society, and those children are far from what I would call normal. As a result, it can be strongly argued that for modern humans, a natural setting is one in which they grow up in a human society, and so having access to everything that society provides is "natural". This post does not give justice to the argument; I suggest "A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality" for a well thought out, though very dense, exposition.
"It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly."
I've read tons of literature on history (including Christian history). Frankly, the more I read - the more I despise all religions.
And controlling sex desires is one of the ultimate control methods.
I don't think you have read what I am talking about. For natural law, I mean people that have written on it (like the aforementioned book). For history, I mean not what the Church* has done (like the crusades), but what the Church debated about (like natural law, birth control, women leadership, and homosexuality)**, and the reasons for stances and how those stances were changed. When looking at religions from the point of view of the most egregious (and most visible) offenses, religion does look pretty bad, but when looking at it from the point of view of the intellectual debate and social development, religion is not so bad. Do you know why we have public hospitals?
* The Church, capitalized, indicates the entire Christian community, across denominations, including those that may not even "attend church". It does not only indicate Roman Catholics. Originally, people spoke of the "catholic church" (lowercase "c") to mean this, as catholic means universal, but now that is usually misunderstood to mean the Roman Catholic church. How that for interesting?
** If you think that there is not a variety of thoughtful, well-argued positions, spread across denominations and within them, you are sorely mistaken. Just because a very visible minority is stupid, does not mean the quieter majority is stupid too.
2) In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
The purpose of eating is to gain energy from food. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as food fights, diets, giving up chocolate for Lent, and pictures made from pasta shapes.
Ah, but I forget, religious logic only applies to those things they decide it should apply to, right?
This is actually quite interesting, for this argument is brought up in regards to natural law frequently.
What is the purpose of eating? Is it to gain energy? Or is it to maintain the body? I would argue the second is closer (without saying that it is correct). The second includes gaining calories needed to survive, but also gaining nutrients to grow needed organs, and in general to provide the appropriate grist to run a body.
Going with this, diets are quite natural, as they are an attempt to provide the body with a better intake. Overeating (gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins) is rather harmful to the body, and proponents of natural law argue that it is evil on that basis alone, regardless of all the other possible reasons.
Giving up chocolate is less interesting, as that is a tool to remind oneself of God and to increase reflection and to center oneself blah blah blah (I do not want to get into this). However, the opposite, the eating of sweets, is more interesting. Some argue that it is wrong, as sweets are not nutritional. Here, you have the consumption of food that does not further the purpose of eating, but rather occurs for pleasure only. This leads some to argue that sweets are evil. Others say that sweets are nutritional (they add calories) in moderation, and that therefore it is okay.
Pasta shapes also goes along with sweets. Here, with or without the shape, the food provides sustenance. Adding the shape does not change the primary reason for eating, but instead just makes it more pleasant. The shape does not cause the food to be unused by the body.
Finally, food fights. Here, we are using food for something not for providing for the body. All of the above does not interfere with the purpose of eating, but this arguably could. However, the possible sin is the wasting of food, rather than interfering with the purpose of eating, as no eating is happening here, and so the purpose of eating is not thwarted (as opposed to the eating itself, see "wasting of food").
Perhaps you will allow me to take something like orlistat. This is a substance, taken in a pill, where a large portion of the fat in eaten food is not absorbed into the body. In this case, you actually have eating occurring, but the food is not being used for its purpose (in its entirety), but instead the food is being used to make the person feel full, which is not the purpose of eating, but merely a side effect. According to this argument, orlistat is "unnatural". A counter to this is that it is simply another medical intervention, which for some reason is considered natural, outside of the Christian Scientists.
Another example is where people eat and then (deliberately) throw up. This is a very direct parallel to non-procreative sex. One eats for the feelings of eating, and then throws up so no sustenance is gains, which is a very direct thwarting of nature. This has been argued as evil, since it is unnatural.
I believe that you fail to see the depth behind the natural law argument. Many people do, even ones that have deep understandings of similar ideas. However, just because you do not agree or believe does not mean you should ridicule.
Uhm... Having all your children survive and living more than 35 years is also 'unnatural'. And I'm not even speaking about surgery, dental care and airplanes.
Arguable both ways.
The main reason to deny sex is control. Pure and simple.
It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly.
In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
Nature has a habit of throwing some curve balls at you. Many animals have sex for fun.
A friend's dog couldn't stop humping anything that moved, and I saw a documentary once where a cane toad was having sex with another toad that was squashed flat on a road.
Nice devil's advocate. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been used to move away from procreation-centered sex. Another is a discussion about couples that are infertile for one reason or another, the most common being menopause.
Some life-forms also reproduce by means of cloning themselves. Does this mean that because asexual reproduction is "natural" that god won't have a problem with human cloning?
Now back at you: those life forms naturally reproduce that way. Humans don't. Thus, cloning, in vitro fertilization, and other medically assisted means are unnatural, and so evil.
I think it's pretty safe to say RMS would agree that he has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights."
This is true only for software. A talk by RMS states clearly what he would like. Basically, functional works (encyclopedias, software) have no copyright, personal opinion/experience works (editorials, scientific papers) have copyright, though allowing verbatim copies, and artistic works have full copyright, but reduced in duration to about a decade.
If the FSF could rewrite copyright law, it'd be completely different. I'd say they have an open dislike (maybe not "bias") against the current typical use of copyright, especially for computer programs.
Spot on. A talk by RMS states clearly what he would like. Basically, functional works (encyclopedias, software) have no copyright, personal opinion/experience works (editorials, scientific papers) have copyright, but verbatim copies are allowed, and artistic works have full copyright, but reduced to a decade or so. There are some problems defining this categorization, but copyright already has to deal with some pretty grey areas, such as fair use.
What RMS and ideologically similar people have proposed is this: software should not be covered under copyright law. You can see this ideal most clearly if you head over to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html and read the two articles called "Why Software Should {Be Free,Not Have Owners}". While I disagree with his philosophy, he makes a pretty solid empirical case for why software should not be "owned" in the same sense that books are "owned" by their author or art is "owned" by the artist.
[... A] key point about the GPL and why it exists: because there is copyright law, the FSF must use copyright law to accomplish their goals. If software was suddenly declared ineligible for copyright, there'd be no need for the GPL because no proprietary software company could prevent people with access to their source code from modifying or redistributing it, nor could they prevent people from modifying or distributing binary copies of the software. This is a small step back from the current state where the group of people with access to the GPL'd source code includes everyone with a copy of the binary, but it's a giant leap forward in eliminating all the complex legal issues around who can copy what and where.
Matthew 26:6-13
Mark 14:3-9
Luke 7:36-50
John 12:1-8
Sometimes feeding the poor is not the only immediate thing to do. There is a lot here to think about regarding priorities. One must care for oneself so that one can care for others. If I have the choice between giving all my food away and keeping enough for myself so I don't starve, the latter is the appropriate thing to do. Think capital investment.
This is why, for example, the Catholic church prohibits contraception; it makes the church grow more quickly.
Hardly. Here is the argument:
1) God created nature, and nature was good. Thus, the law of nature, or "natural law", is good and God-created, and must not be broken. Therefore, things that are "unnatural", or break the law of nature, are evil.
2) In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
The first is pretty commonly accepted, but by no means universal, even by those who disagree on the Catholic church's position. To see one case where this plays out, most people's response to homosexuals is, "Ew, gross. That's just wrong. It's not natural." A large number of peoples aversions fall into this category.
Also realize that the Christian church grew out of the Jewish religion, where "spilling one's seed" or other non-procreative sexual acts were condemned, since that was not Yahweh's purpose for sex.
Suffice it to say, the argument is usually one about what is "natural" or not. If, however, you can argue against natural law being God's law, then that works too.
It was not until recently that sex for non-procreative purposes was determined "natural" by the Anglican church, and then once one had taken the plunge, almost every other denomination followed. The Catholic church has a hierarchy that creates immense inertia, which is why their official stance has not changed, even though many of their members do not agree with it.
Of course, at various times, there were other things that supported the church's opinion. For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being, which was just housed by the woman until birth, and so prevention of conception was tantamount to killing an unborn person, which is murder.
Many people I have spoken too take "gay" to mean "homosexual male", and so that "gay woman" is a contradiction in terms. This is because "gay" originated to speak of the phenomenon of homosexuality when only men were the public eye. When women come on the (public) scene, does gay stay with its original meaning of "homosexual man", or its original meaning of "homosexual person"?
You will find that photocopies (essentially what faxes and scan/email/prints are) do not have the same legal weight as an original. It is harder to forge an original than it is to forge a photocopy. Or do you think that a photocopy of any document should be allowed to have the same significance as an original? Like driver's licenses, passports, birth certificates, contracts, etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
no registration means you can only claim for actual damages, having a registration causes punitive to come into play
My understanding is that without registration you can't press a copyright infringement suit at all. That's not a big deal, though, it just means you send in the registration just before you file your suit.
In the US, if you don't register within a specific time frame, you do lose the right to statutory damages.
Wikipedia:
The USPO is SO cheap when you compare the two. And you all get first class mail with no additional charge!
What?
First class mail most definitely is more expensive. There just is no other option for small items, unless bulk mailing.
Someone already replied about anecdotes, but I will add one that is actually generalizable to an extent.
One difference with the USPS is that they deliver to mailboxes. We once lived in a rural, mountainous area. Most people would ship packages to us via UPS. They were delivered to our home and left outside. If those packages contained food, wild animals would tear them open, and if it rained, they would get soaked. The USPS would deliver to a locked package mailbox, and leave the key in the regular mailbox, so the package was always safe.
Wikipedia, fun for the whole family. PS: they're not 'sponsored'; they don't get any money from the feds. They're given the postal equivalent of common carrier status, but only to a mailbox marked "US Mail". If you want to make your own postal service, you can go right ahead- you just can't deliver to a US Mail mailbox. Given that almost nobody's mailbox is actually marked "US Mail", practically, you CAN run a competitive service.
Nor can you deliver most letters, unless you pay the USPS. Quoting Wikipedia right back at you:
[Non-USPS delivered] letters must either cost at least the greater of $3 or twice what First Class (or Priority) mail service would cost, or they must be delivered within strict time limits or otherwise lose value. [...]
It is possible to set up a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage" if the USPS postage is paid in addition to any private postage fee that is collected.
So, either, you have to charge a lot more than the USPS, deliver within time constraints, or charge more than the USPS (or not be in the volume letter business).
You sound like a rather die-hard cynic, and not terribly willing to be see the grey in situations. As such, I don't have too much to say. Except, first I note that western hospitals grew out of the Christian care doctrine in the Roman Empire, and second, you would be very surprised at the number of things you take for granted which came about from religious sources.
Good day.
This reminds me of the book "Spock Must Die!"
Spoiler warning!
In the book, a long distance transportation of Spock goes wrong (the beam is mirrored back to the ship), and a duplicate Spock is created. A lot of the book involves trying to figure out which is the "real" one in combination with solving the other issues. At one point, it is discussed that the copy was likely a mirror image. Eventually the evil one is found by noticing that he does not eat regular food, because his chirality is reversed, as the mirroring goes done to the molecular level.
"Arguable both ways."
How? Average lifetime of a caveman (you can't get more 'natural' than that) was about 30 years. With horrible child mortality.
That's NATURAL.
Is it? What is the natural habitat for a modern human (not a caveman)? A couple of times, children have been found that have grown up without contact with any humans or human society, and those children are far from what I would call normal. As a result, it can be strongly argued that for modern humans, a natural setting is one in which they grow up in a human society, and so having access to everything that society provides is "natural". This post does not give justice to the argument; I suggest "A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality" for a well thought out, though very dense, exposition.
"It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly."
I've read tons of literature on history (including Christian history). Frankly, the more I read - the more I despise all religions.
And controlling sex desires is one of the ultimate control methods.
I don't think you have read what I am talking about. For natural law, I mean people that have written on it (like the aforementioned book). For history, I mean not what the Church* has done (like the crusades), but what the Church debated about (like natural law, birth control, women leadership, and homosexuality)**, and the reasons for stances and how those stances were changed. When looking at religions from the point of view of the most egregious (and most visible) offenses, religion does look pretty bad, but when looking at it from the point of view of the intellectual debate and social development, religion is not so bad. Do you know why we have public hospitals?
* The Church, capitalized, indicates the entire Christian community, across denominations, including those that may not even "attend church". It does not only indicate Roman Catholics. Originally, people spoke of the "catholic church" (lowercase "c") to mean this, as catholic means universal, but now that is usually misunderstood to mean the Roman Catholic church. How that for interesting?
** If you think that there is not a variety of thoughtful, well-argued positions, spread across denominations and within them, you are sorely mistaken. Just because a very visible minority is stupid, does not mean the quieter majority is stupid too.
2) In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
The purpose of eating is to gain energy from food. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as food fights, diets, giving up chocolate for Lent, and pictures made from pasta shapes.
Ah, but I forget, religious logic only applies to those things they decide it should apply to, right?
This is actually quite interesting, for this argument is brought up in regards to natural law frequently.
What is the purpose of eating? Is it to gain energy? Or is it to maintain the body? I would argue the second is closer (without saying that it is correct). The second includes gaining calories needed to survive, but also gaining nutrients to grow needed organs, and in general to provide the appropriate grist to run a body.
Going with this, diets are quite natural, as they are an attempt to provide the body with a better intake. Overeating (gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins) is rather harmful to the body, and proponents of natural law argue that it is evil on that basis alone, regardless of all the other possible reasons.
Giving up chocolate is less interesting, as that is a tool to remind oneself of God and to increase reflection and to center oneself blah blah blah (I do not want to get into this). However, the opposite, the eating of sweets, is more interesting. Some argue that it is wrong, as sweets are not nutritional. Here, you have the consumption of food that does not further the purpose of eating, but rather occurs for pleasure only. This leads some to argue that sweets are evil. Others say that sweets are nutritional (they add calories) in moderation, and that therefore it is okay.
Pasta shapes also goes along with sweets. Here, with or without the shape, the food provides sustenance. Adding the shape does not change the primary reason for eating, but instead just makes it more pleasant. The shape does not cause the food to be unused by the body.
Finally, food fights. Here, we are using food for something not for providing for the body. All of the above does not interfere with the purpose of eating, but this arguably could. However, the possible sin is the wasting of food, rather than interfering with the purpose of eating, as no eating is happening here, and so the purpose of eating is not thwarted (as opposed to the eating itself, see "wasting of food").
Perhaps you will allow me to take something like orlistat. This is a substance, taken in a pill, where a large portion of the fat in eaten food is not absorbed into the body. In this case, you actually have eating occurring, but the food is not being used for its purpose (in its entirety), but instead the food is being used to make the person feel full, which is not the purpose of eating, but merely a side effect. According to this argument, orlistat is "unnatural". A counter to this is that it is simply another medical intervention, which for some reason is considered natural, outside of the Christian Scientists.
Another example is where people eat and then (deliberately) throw up. This is a very direct parallel to non-procreative sex. One eats for the feelings of eating, and then throws up so no sustenance is gains, which is a very direct thwarting of nature. This has been argued as evil, since it is unnatural.
I believe that you fail to see the depth behind the natural law argument. Many people do, even ones that have deep understandings of similar ideas. However, just because you do not agree or believe does not mean you should ridicule.
Uhm... Having all your children survive and living more than 35 years is also 'unnatural'. And I'm not even speaking about surgery, dental care and airplanes.
Arguable both ways.
The main reason to deny sex is control. Pure and simple.
It is not simple. I suggest you go out and read up on the Catholic church's position, the history of various denomination's stances, and natural law. You will find some pretty interesting ideas and arguments out there, even if wrong. They are not to be dismissed so lightly.
In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
Nature has a habit of throwing some curve balls at you. Many animals have sex for fun.
A friend's dog couldn't stop humping anything that moved, and I saw a documentary once where a cane toad was having sex with another toad that was squashed flat on a road.
Nice devil's advocate. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been used to move away from procreation-centered sex. Another is a discussion about couples that are infertile for one reason or another, the most common being menopause.
Some life-forms also reproduce by means of cloning themselves. Does this mean that because asexual reproduction is "natural" that god won't have a problem with human cloning?
Now back at you: those life forms naturally reproduce that way. Humans don't. Thus, cloning, in vitro fertilization, and other medically assisted means are unnatural, and so evil.
Yes. Thank you.
I think it's pretty safe to say RMS would agree that he has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights."
This is true only for software. A talk by RMS states clearly what he would like. Basically, functional works (encyclopedias, software) have no copyright, personal opinion/experience works (editorials, scientific papers) have copyright, though allowing verbatim copies, and artistic works have full copyright, but reduced in duration to about a decade.
If the FSF could rewrite copyright law, it'd be completely different. I'd say they have an open dislike (maybe not "bias") against the current typical use of copyright, especially for computer programs.
Spot on. A talk by RMS states clearly what he would like. Basically, functional works (encyclopedias, software) have no copyright, personal opinion/experience works (editorials, scientific papers) have copyright, but verbatim copies are allowed, and artistic works have full copyright, but reduced to a decade or so. There are some problems defining this categorization, but copyright already has to deal with some pretty grey areas, such as fair use.
KutuluWare said it well:
[...]
What RMS and ideologically similar people have proposed is this: software should not be covered under copyright law. You can see this ideal most clearly if you head over to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html and read the two articles called "Why Software Should {Be Free,Not Have Owners}". While I disagree with his philosophy, he makes a pretty solid empirical case for why software should not be "owned" in the same sense that books are "owned" by their author or art is "owned" by the artist.
[... A] key point about the GPL and why it exists: because there is copyright law, the FSF must use copyright law to accomplish their goals. If software was suddenly declared ineligible for copyright, there'd be no need for the GPL because no proprietary software company could prevent people with access to their source code from modifying or redistributing it, nor could they prevent people from modifying or distributing binary copies of the software. This is a small step back from the current state where the group of people with access to the GPL'd source code includes everyone with a copy of the binary, but it's a giant leap forward in eliminating all the complex legal issues around who can copy what and where.
Above is a reply that says the poster's ISP drops packets destined for IPs on the blacklist. Which means that your method wouldn't work there.
When shoes break down, they get farther away from the state of barefoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation is a nice discussion.
Matthew 26:6-13
Mark 14:3-9
Luke 7:36-50
John 12:1-8
Sometimes feeding the poor is not the only immediate thing to do. There is a lot here to think about regarding priorities. One must care for oneself so that one can care for others. If I have the choice between giving all my food away and keeping enough for myself so I don't starve, the latter is the appropriate thing to do. Think capital investment.
This is why, for example, the Catholic church prohibits contraception; it makes the church grow more quickly.
Hardly. Here is the argument:
1) God created nature, and nature was good. Thus, the law of nature, or "natural law", is good and God-created, and must not be broken. Therefore, things that are "unnatural", or break the law of nature, are evil.
2) In natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus, anything that interferes with that is evil, such as masturbation or birth control.
The first is pretty commonly accepted, but by no means universal, even by those who disagree on the Catholic church's position. To see one case where this plays out, most people's response to homosexuals is, "Ew, gross. That's just wrong. It's not natural." A large number of peoples aversions fall into this category.
Also realize that the Christian church grew out of the Jewish religion, where "spilling one's seed" or other non-procreative sexual acts were condemned, since that was not Yahweh's purpose for sex.
Suffice it to say, the argument is usually one about what is "natural" or not. If, however, you can argue against natural law being God's law, then that works too.
It was not until recently that sex for non-procreative purposes was determined "natural" by the Anglican church, and then once one had taken the plunge, almost every other denomination followed. The Catholic church has a hierarchy that creates immense inertia, which is why their official stance has not changed, even though many of their members do not agree with it.
Of course, at various times, there were other things that supported the church's opinion. For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being, which was just housed by the woman until birth, and so prevention of conception was tantamount to killing an unborn person, which is murder.
I meant that "on-topic grammatical errors" are puns, if intentional. I wasn't being particularly serious.
http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/
Many people I have spoken too take "gay" to mean "homosexual male", and so that "gay woman" is a contradiction in terms. This is because "gay" originated to speak of the phenomenon of homosexuality when only men were the public eye. When women come on the (public) scene, does gay stay with its original meaning of "homosexual man", or its original meaning of "homosexual person"?
You will find that photocopies (essentially what faxes and scan/email/prints are) do not have the same legal weight as an original. It is harder to forge an original than it is to forge a photocopy. Or do you think that a photocopy of any document should be allowed to have the same significance as an original? Like driver's licenses, passports, birth certificates, contracts, etc.?
3000 MORE members, for a total of 17,799.
It's a pun.