I may sound naive but I am pretty sure that the Boston Massacre was one of the first violent acts of the Revolution and it wasn't the founding fathers doing the shooting.
Our founding father's tried the Luther approach first and answered with war only after the British moved an army in.
Encouraging violence and terrorism, as this young man is, is hardly a way to start a revolution. As I said in an earlier post, if he had a 95 theses or Declaration of Independence he might attract more than angry high-school kids as his follower.
Please don't imply from all of this that I don't see a need for change. I just believe that there are much better ways to fight a war than by bombing buildings. The great leaders in history were almost without fail orators night fighters.
The point was not whether the church was the equal of today's government. The point is that he challenged the church directly with 95 (not 99) points and invited them to debate him directly. If this young man went to the capital with a list of 95 well formed complaints and posted them on the internet and called for open debate then he might actually attract more than angry high-school kids. Instead he talks about bombs and defacing websites. Hardly the stuff of great leaders like Martin Luther.
If you taped it to a brick then the brick would go nowhere and the envelope would go on its merry way. You can't mail a package, or a brick with a regular envelope taped on top. It would never get passed your local post office.
I also wouldn't try it from your regular mailbox because you probably would get arrested for mail tampering which is a federal offense.
And yes this article was about spam but the original poster made the comparison and thus the thread spread.
Because Martin Luther wrote a challenge to the church. He put down his thoughts in 95 points and he invited people to come and debate him on the points. At no point did he advocated burning down the church or that the church itself was even evil.
There is a lot we can learn from the approach Martin Luther and even his namesake Martin Luther King took versus what this young man tried.
It is not the Government's right to say "Peaceful, organized protest is OK, but anything else (like posting a call to action website) is illegal
You know what - according to the Constitution it is:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not sure I would say that nailing a challenge to the Catholic Church on a church door equal to posting Anti-Government agenda on commerical websites, planting software and advocating violence.
Actually, both of your points are weak. It definitely does not annoy junk mail senders. Have you ever gone to a fulfillment house? They are independent companies that receive, open and sort mail for companies that send junkmail. If they receive an empty envelope it just goes in the garbage without a thought. The sender of the junkmail never even finds out. Actually, they get a count of all envelopes and you sending back an empty will increase the count and reinforce their belief that the mailing is working.
As for the added revenue to the post office it is fairly minimal when you consider that it does cost them to deliver your empty envelope.
If the postal workers didn't have to spend so much time delivering junk mail
Your mailman makes a special trip to deliver junk mail to your house? That's funny he only makes one trip with all of my mail. Now if you said sorting I might have agreed but even then most junkmail is easier to sort than hand written envelopes.
Who are you responding to because it is obviously not me. If you read all of my posts you will see that I have read the agreement on the New Scientist site and I have stated firmly that New Scientist retains their original copyright.
My whole point is not how lazy or ignorant people are of the GPL. I actually never even mention the GPL since this article is not published under the GPL.
I also have argued my point in several other threads. Find something specific in there that you disagree to and then get back to me. I find it ironic, though, that you get so fired up about people not reading the agreement when you obviously haven't read the agreement on the site and haven't read all of my points in this thread.
How about you actually go to the site and read. I am quoting directly from them:
Copyright law gives certain exclusive rights to the author of a work,
including the rights to copy, modify and distribute the work (the
"reproductive," "adaptative," and "distribution" rights).
The idea of "copyleft" is to willfully revoke the exclusivity of those
rights under certain terms and conditions, so that anyone can copy and
distribute the work or properly attributed derivative works, while all
copies remain under the same terms and conditions as the original.
Your point about the publisher is very silly. They are signing a contract giving the publisher explicit rights to publish and distribute the work much like MLB give the express written consent to ESPN to broadcast baseball games. I think you will also find that often the publisher, not the author, sometimes holds the copyright.
In the case of copyleft, the copyright holder is saying that anybody can copy the work without explicit consent so long as they refer back to the original copyright holder.
Re:Why the moaning?
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The FCC ordered them to demonstrate iteroperability. They chose their victim.. I mean, partner, to be some dot-com that is now bankrupt and defunct (nice loop-hole spotting, AOL!). I'm trying to find links on this to back this up, and I'll post them here when I find them (just couldn't let this go unanswered).
Keep looking because you are wrong. Here is a link. The FCC only forces them to demonstrate interoperability of advanced IM services which includes Video conferencing and the such. Nothing was set about regular IM. Of course, this agreement lasts for only 5 years and can change at any time.
Are you agreeing with me then? I think that political connotations are a great way to get the average person out of the picture. Associating a term or belief with left wing is a sure way to prevent acceptance. Most people don't like to consider themselves left wing or right wing.
One could also misconstrue copyright as the right for anybody to copy but because it has a long standing meaning it that isn't an issue. I am also not saying that copyfree is the right answer but to me copyleft has no meaning. It will sound to the average person like a joke, pun or worst of all technobabble. I would look for something that actually has a real meaning.
Oh absolutely. That is the core to the both Copyleft and my Copyfree. They are not replacements for Copyright law but extensions that (I believe) correct what are inherent weaknesses in the law. I have longed believed that copyright law should be more about protecting the author from plagiarism than it should be about making them rich.
If you read the rest of my post I am actually quoting them almost verbatim. Actually I did quote them verbatim in the second half of my post.
A copyright is the exclusive right of the author to copy, modify and distribute the work. By allowing other people to copy, modify and distribute your work you are effectively waiving the rights granted to you by the copyright.
You are correct that they retain the copyright, though.
I did not say usefree or completelyfree I said Copyfree which means that you are free to copy just as copyright means that you have the exclusive right to copy.
And which idea are we talking about as made up by an American? I hope you mean copyleft and not copyright. We have the British to thank for the original copyrights (Queen Anne's law or something like that).
Copyright means that I have the exclusive "right" to "copy" the work. What does copyleft mean? I have the exclusive left? Mine means that people are "free" to "copy" the work as long as they refer back to the original author.
There is a very good reason I chose Copyfree and not copyright. Also, remember the difference between freedom and free beer.
PBS has become a more commercialized (and therefore less intelligent) venture mainly because it has lost the support of viewers and now relies almost entirely on corporate sponsors. Corporate sponsors, of course, expect ratings and ratings only come with pop trash.
I would also argue, though, that PBS varies from station to station. Here in New York we actually have 3 PBS channels available and I can see a huge difference in the programming between them.
They seem to define copyleft as "We have a copyright but we are waiving it so that it can be redistributed".
In their words - "We haven't given up our copyright on this article, but we have agreed to waive many of the exclusive rights a copyright normally bestows."
So if you abuse their copyleft notion then you will find out that they do still have a legal copyright.
I personally think that copyleft is silly. It should be copyfree but I guess that isn't as catchy as copyleft.
I actually was going to change that to 1 dimensional but I was afraid it would cause more of a stir than saying 2 dimensional. Information is 1 dimensional, the presentation of informational is 2 dimensional (on a written page or website) and the organization/architecture of information is n dimensional.
Slashdot Mirror
I may sound naive but I am pretty sure that the Boston Massacre was one of the first violent acts of the Revolution and it wasn't the founding fathers doing the shooting.
Our founding father's tried the Luther approach first and answered with war only after the British moved an army in.
Encouraging violence and terrorism, as this young man is, is hardly a way to start a revolution. As I said in an earlier post, if he had a 95 theses or Declaration of Independence he might attract more than angry high-school kids as his follower.
Please don't imply from all of this that I don't see a need for change. I just believe that there are much better ways to fight a war than by bombing buildings. The great leaders in history were almost without fail orators night fighters.
Substitue or for and in the third sentence. He doesn't actually have to go to the capital to post on the internet.
The point was not whether the church was the equal of today's government. The point is that he challenged the church directly with 95 (not 99) points and invited them to debate him directly. If this young man went to the capital with a list of 95 well formed complaints and posted them on the internet and called for open debate then he might actually attract more than angry high-school kids. Instead he talks about bombs and defacing websites. Hardly the stuff of great leaders like Martin Luther.
If you taped it to a brick then the brick would go nowhere and the envelope would go on its merry way. You can't mail a package, or a brick with a regular envelope taped on top. It would never get passed your local post office.
I also wouldn't try it from your regular mailbox because you probably would get arrested for mail tampering which is a federal offense.
And yes this article was about spam but the original poster made the comparison and thus the thread spread.
Because Martin Luther wrote a challenge to the church. He put down his thoughts in 95 points and he invited people to come and debate him on the points. At no point did he advocated burning down the church or that the church itself was even evil.
There is a lot we can learn from the approach Martin Luther and even his namesake Martin Luther King took versus what this young man tried.
It is not the Government's right to say "Peaceful, organized protest is OK, but anything else (like posting a call to action website) is illegal
You know what - according to the Constitution it is:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not sure I would say that nailing a challenge to the Catholic Church on a church door equal to posting Anti-Government agenda on commerical websites, planting software and advocating violence.
Check with your state government. I know in New York you can sign up on the Do Not Call Registry and make it illegal for them to call you.
Actually, both of your points are weak. It definitely does not annoy junk mail senders. Have you ever gone to a fulfillment house? They are independent companies that receive, open and sort mail for companies that send junkmail. If they receive an empty envelope it just goes in the garbage without a thought. The sender of the junkmail never even finds out. Actually, they get a count of all envelopes and you sending back an empty will increase the count and reinforce their belief that the mailing is working.
As for the added revenue to the post office it is fairly minimal when you consider that it does cost them to deliver your empty envelope.
In other words, stop wasting your time.
If the postal workers didn't have to spend so much time delivering junk mail
Your mailman makes a special trip to deliver junk mail to your house? That's funny he only makes one trip with all of my mail. Now if you said sorting I might have agreed but even then most junkmail is easier to sort than hand written envelopes.
Who are you responding to because it is obviously not me. If you read all of my posts you will see that I have read the agreement on the New Scientist site and I have stated firmly that New Scientist retains their original copyright.
My whole point is not how lazy or ignorant people are of the GPL. I actually never even mention the GPL since this article is not published under the GPL.
I also have argued my point in several other threads. Find something specific in there that you disagree to and then get back to me. I find it ironic, though, that you get so fired up about people not reading the agreement when you obviously haven't read the agreement on the site and haven't read all of my points in this thread.
How about you actually go to the site and read. I am quoting directly from them:
Copyright law gives certain exclusive rights to the author of a work,
including the rights to copy, modify and distribute the work (the
"reproductive," "adaptative," and "distribution" rights).
The idea of "copyleft" is to willfully revoke the exclusivity of those
rights under certain terms and conditions, so that anyone can copy and
distribute the work or properly attributed derivative works, while all
copies remain under the same terms and conditions as the original.
Your point about the publisher is very silly. They are signing a contract giving the publisher explicit rights to publish and distribute the work much like MLB give the express written consent to ESPN to broadcast baseball games. I think you will also find that often the publisher, not the author, sometimes holds the copyright.
In the case of copyleft, the copyright holder is saying that anybody can copy the work without explicit consent so long as they refer back to the original copyright holder.
Understand?
It was absolutely a wuss out on the part of the FCC but as I said it is for only 5 years. They can change everything at that time. Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that FCC Chairman Michael Powell's father (Secretary of State Colin Powell) was a chairman on the board of AOL at one point.
The FCC ordered them to demonstrate iteroperability. They chose their victim.. I mean, partner, to be some dot-com that is now bankrupt and defunct (nice loop-hole spotting, AOL!). I'm trying to find links on this to back this up, and I'll post them here when I find them (just couldn't let this go unanswered).
Keep looking because you are wrong. Here is a link. The FCC only forces them to demonstrate interoperability of advanced IM services which includes Video conferencing and the such. Nothing was set about regular IM. Of course, this agreement lasts for only 5 years and can change at any time.
What little guy? AOL, Oracle, and Sun have all been pushing the Microsoft Antitrust case. I would hardly consider them "the little guy."
Are you agreeing with me then? I think that political connotations are a great way to get the average person out of the picture. Associating a term or belief with left wing is a sure way to prevent acceptance. Most people don't like to consider themselves left wing or right wing.
One could also misconstrue copyright as the right for anybody to copy but because it has a long standing meaning it that isn't an issue. I am also not saying that copyfree is the right answer but to me copyleft has no meaning. It will sound to the average person like a joke, pun or worst of all technobabble. I would look for something that actually has a real meaning.
Oh absolutely. That is the core to the both Copyleft and my Copyfree. They are not replacements for Copyright law but extensions that (I believe) correct what are inherent weaknesses in the law. I have longed believed that copyright law should be more about protecting the author from plagiarism than it should be about making them rich.
If you read the rest of my post I am actually quoting them almost verbatim. Actually I did quote them verbatim in the second half of my post.
A copyright is the exclusive right of the author to copy, modify and distribute the work. By allowing other people to copy, modify and distribute your work you are effectively waiving the rights granted to you by the copyright.
You are correct that they retain the copyright, though.
I did not say usefree or completelyfree I said Copyfree which means that you are free to copy just as copyright means that you have the exclusive right to copy.
And which idea are we talking about as made up by an American? I hope you mean copyleft and not copyright. We have the British to thank for the original copyrights (Queen Anne's law or something like that).
Copyright means that I have the exclusive "right" to "copy" the work. What does copyleft mean? I have the exclusive left? Mine means that people are "free" to "copy" the work as long as they refer back to the original author.
There is a very good reason I chose Copyfree and not copyright. Also, remember the difference between freedom and free beer.
PBS has become a more commercialized (and therefore less intelligent) venture mainly because it has lost the support of viewers and now relies almost entirely on corporate sponsors. Corporate sponsors, of course, expect ratings and ratings only come with pop trash.
I would also argue, though, that PBS varies from station to station. Here in New York we actually have 3 PBS channels available and I can see a huge difference in the programming between them.
They seem to define copyleft as "We have a copyright but we are waiving it so that it can be redistributed".
In their words - "We haven't given up our copyright on this article, but we have agreed to waive many of the exclusive rights a copyright normally bestows."
So if you abuse their copyleft notion then you will find out that they do still have a legal copyright.
I personally think that copyleft is silly. It should be copyfree but I guess that isn't as catchy as copyleft.
I actually was going to change that to 1 dimensional but I was afraid it would cause more of a stir than saying 2 dimensional. Information is 1 dimensional, the presentation of informational is 2 dimensional (on a written page or website) and the organization/architecture of information is n dimensional.
Nice cut and paste without a point. I am not going to argue with a 14 yr old today.
I will copy one word instead - GIVEN.