if i lived in 3000 bc, i'd write it on a stone tablet. then it would persist almost forever.
Well, just to nit-pick, you'd write it on a clay tablet, and then it wouldn't even last as long as the paper -- unless roaming barbarians happened to burn your city to the ground with you in it, thereby purely by chance baking the clay.
so yes, archeology IS going away.
Oh no it isn't -- archaeology isn't going anywhere anytime in the next few millennia. Consider that even at a major site like Troy, only about 1% of the site has so far been dug up. The economics or archaeology make it a veryslow process. Archaeology has only just got under way.
Indeed. At my current university, the only archaeology that gets taught is taught by classics. And at Cambridge University, archaeology is part of anthropology while classical archaeology is part of classics, and the two sets of archaeologists rarely even talk to one another.
Yeah, because it's SO FUCKING HARD to GET OFF YOUR ARSE and walk INTO A LIBRARY where you DON'T HAVE TO PAY A CENT. The argument you propose is an argument from sheer unadulterated inexcusable laziness.
3) I don't allow any web based content to be a primary resource (stand alone), nor am I interested in seeing papers based on encyclopedias (only) either.
I agree with your other problems, but depending on your field, this one may be a bit short-sighted. In my field I would certainly accept a site like this papyrology database or the only existing translation of a 10th-century encyclopaedia to be a primary source, even though they're standalone. Of course it's always easy to find exceptions:-)
But obviously Wikipedia isn't a primary source, or even secondary: it's a tertiary source, as Halavais correctly points out in this transcript of an online chat with him, which strangely TFA doesn't link to (I find it much more informative than TFA itself).
No, I'm afraid it's going to take people, lots of people, in the streets, being decidedly ill-behaved if we're going to keep this nation anything like the beautiful experiment that the Founding Fathers produced.
I'm not an American so perhaps I shouldn't comment, but looking in from outside it seems to me that mass protests are an extremely unlikely scenario. Far more likely, it looks to me, is that continually decreasing confidence in the electoral system will lead to progressive alienation between the sitting government and other institutions, in turn leading to a military coup d'etat sometime in the next few decades, followed by electoral reform. (Of course that's just me imagining possible futures; reality is generally stranger than fiction.)
Considering the mountains and mountains of problems involved in moving across real-world borders, it's slightly scary to say I find that a somewhat insightful answer.
No! No! Stay away! The weather's pretty bad, there are no flat bits for cycling, and we're bound to have a far-right coalition after the next election in 2007!
Ah, well, OK, come on then. We're pretty good about taking in political refugees:-)
Actually, seriously, one thing that might put you off NZ is the lower wages. Check things out first, as you would before moving to any country. Cost of living's a bit lower than Oz in many ways, and a lot lower than Europe, but wages are a lot lower too. I'm pretty comfy here, but YMMV.
No, you're still misunderstanding me. The act of publishing a copy of a text -- the text, not the footnotes or annotations -- places that copy of the text under the copyright of the editor or publisher.
So, for example, the text in your 1998 edition of Shakespeare is under copyright. The words "Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt" as printed in that edition are under copyright.Copyright law prohibits you from reproducing the text of an entire play from that edition. If you're very lucky, the text is identical to the text as printed in a 19th-century edition which is out of copyright; so in that case you may reproduce that version of the text at your whim. -- just so long as it's clear that it's the 19th-century edition that you're reproducing, and not the 1998 edition. One copy of Shakespeare is public domain, the other is copyrighted.
The rationale for why this is so is that every new edition of a text involves creative work. In the case of Shakespeare, that involves things like going through the text and evaluating which readings are preferable to which other readings: e.g. "Oh that this too, too sullied flesh", or "Oh that this too, too solid flesh"? Should the comma be there? Should there be another comma after "Oh"? and so on.
This is just plain wrong. There is no U.S. copyright on Project Gutenberg ebooks. In fact, the Project specifically prohibits copyrighted material.
Again, this is a misunderstanding. Project Gutenberg will not allow you to upload copyrighted works, as that would make them liable for reproducing them unlawfully: that's what the text you quote means. However, once you upload a public-domain work, Project Gutenberg's act of reproducing it places that copy of the text under a copyright owned by Project Gutenberg. It is only on the basis of this that they are able to attach that licence of theirs to the start of each text: you can't licence something you don't own. They don't have an explicit copyright notice in the text, but that's not legally necessary; they do include a general notice in the Project Gutenberg Licence:
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
it is the additional material that is copyrighted, not the Shakespeare-penned material itself.
Regrettably, that is not true. The copyright to a given text of Shakespeare -- including the words of the poet himself -- is owned by the editor of the edition in which the text appears. It works similarly to taking photos of classical art. The Mona Lisa isn't under copyright: fine. But if you take a photo of it, you own the copyright to your photo. If you see a print of it in a book, you can't go copying that print: it's under copyright. Similarly, an editor of a text -- any text -- owns the copyright to his/her rendition of that text.
Just chalk it up as an offhand comment by the parent. Most other people know that the text of all of Shakespeare's known works can be downloaded for free online.
Well, yes and no. Texts of Shakespeare are available for free -- that is, texts published before 1932 (or whenever, I forget the precise date). Editions published later than that are under copyright. It makes a difference: the text printed in critical editions does change significantly from generation to generation.
The copyright to current editions will normally be owned by the editor of the edition. So, for example, the copyright to this edition of Julius Caesar, edited by Roma Gill and published by Oxford University Press, is owned by Roma Gill or Oxford University Press (depending on the nature of the deal made between the editor and the publisher). Basically, almost any book you see on sale in any bookshop -- unless (like me) you're in the habit of frequenting antiquarian bookshops -- is going to be under copyright, even if the author is centuries dead.
Similarly, it is likely that, for example, out-of-copyright books available on books.google.com are under copyright by Google, though Google doesn't seem interested in enforcing its rights. Books available on Project Gutenberg are certainly under copyright, or there'd be no reason to enforce the use of licences prepended to each book there.
Homer, Virgil, Euripides, Sun Tzu, Chaucer-- yeah, I think a few of those might be off copyright already.
The translations aren't. For out-of-copyright versions, you still have to go back to versions published a century ago, where the translations are uniformly full of "thou"s and "thee"s and written in bad verse more incomprehensible than the original languages. In fact even modern critical editions of the texts in their original languages are under copyright.
I rather think they re-named it (it's canem, by the way, not canum -- the misspelling could make life difficult for someone trying to find it in an online shop) because they figured British customers would be alienated by the word "bully". School bullying is probably the single hottest issue in public discussion of the school system in the UK. Well, maybe number 2.
If you're going to suggest that evolution naturally and intrinsically tends towards larger organisms, 99% of all lifeforms in the world are going to disagree with you. It's simply wrong. Furthermore, I rather doubt there's any evidence in favour of human evolution tending towards larger humans, which is something you seem to be taking for granted.
Any anthropologist will tell you that the direction of evolution has always been and will continue to be, larger brained and more intelligent.
Any anthropologist who claimed what you suggest would be 100% wrong. More than 99% by mass of all creatures on the planet are microscopic organisms without brains or nervous systems; even larger things like insects are almost infinitely more successful than mammals. Large complex organisms are statistical outliers that you expect in any random distribution: the only reason that numbers of large creatures increased over the first few hundred million years of life on this planet is simply that there was more time available in which those outliers could occur.
Well, I dropped pay-Eudora in favor of T-bird, in hopes of losing vendor lock-in on the format and an annual software fee. To be honest, I liked eudora better, but I can get around in thunderbird. Problem is, t-bird is such a space hog -
Eudora and Thunderbird both use precisely the same storage format, viz. mbox, so I'm afraid the first of your reasons for switching to Tbird wasn't a terribly good one. Given this, I'd also suspect that the reason for why your e-mail is taking up so much space is not caused specifically by the change of e-mail client. I'd suggest either (1) you're getting much more e-mail these days; or else (2) you've never done "File - Compact Folders". (Tbird should normally remind you to do that; perhaps it hasn't. Still, it does require more user maintenance, as others in this discussion have pointed out.)
Surely CR/LF won't be an issue? I should have thought that if it were, everyone would always have problems sending/receiving mail between *nix/Mac/Windows e-mail clients. And even if it were an issue, surely any decent app will auto-detect which to use? If a very basic text editor can do it, Eudora certainly ought to.
Agreed. When I was using OS X a year ago I too used Thunderbird, the main reason being that Mail.app just didn't do threading properly -- at the time, anyway.
It's not isolated: I've had that problem a few times too, and I think it's a result of importing mail from other clients, or perhaps just some other clients (maybe OE import is ok, but I've also imported from Pegasus, Eudora, and Opera). Mind you I've had the same problem with other clients, so it's not just Tbird.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, just to nit-pick, you'd write it on a clay tablet, and then it wouldn't even last as long as the paper -- unless roaming barbarians happened to burn your city to the ground with you in it, thereby purely by chance baking the clay.
Oh no it isn't -- archaeology isn't going anywhere anytime in the next few millennia. Consider that even at a major site like Troy, only about 1% of the site has so far been dug up. The economics or archaeology make it a veryslow process. Archaeology has only just got under way.
Indeed. At my current university, the only archaeology that gets taught is taught by classics. And at Cambridge University, archaeology is part of anthropology while classical archaeology is part of classics, and the two sets of archaeologists rarely even talk to one another.
Yeah, because it's SO FUCKING HARD to GET OFF YOUR ARSE and walk INTO A LIBRARY where you DON'T HAVE TO PAY A CENT. The argument you propose is an argument from sheer unadulterated inexcusable laziness.
... until, of course, an admin decides randomly to delete the article along with its history.
I agree with your other problems, but depending on your field, this one may be a bit short-sighted. In my field I would certainly accept a site like this papyrology database or the only existing translation of a 10th-century encyclopaedia to be a primary source, even though they're standalone. Of course it's always easy to find exceptions :-)
But obviously Wikipedia isn't a primary source, or even secondary: it's a tertiary source, as Halavais correctly points out in this transcript of an online chat with him, which strangely TFA doesn't link to (I find it much more informative than TFA itself).
I'm not an American so perhaps I shouldn't comment, but looking in from outside it seems to me that mass protests are an extremely unlikely scenario. Far more likely, it looks to me, is that continually decreasing confidence in the electoral system will lead to progressive alienation between the sitting government and other institutions, in turn leading to a military coup d'etat sometime in the next few decades, followed by electoral reform. (Of course that's just me imagining possible futures; reality is generally stranger than fiction.)
Considering the mountains and mountains of problems involved in moving across real-world borders, it's slightly scary to say I find that a somewhat insightful answer.
No! No! Stay away! The weather's pretty bad, there are no flat bits for cycling, and we're bound to have a far-right coalition after the next election in 2007!
Ah, well, OK, come on then. We're pretty good about taking in political refugees :-)
Actually, seriously, one thing that might put you off NZ is the lower wages. Check things out first, as you would before moving to any country. Cost of living's a bit lower than Oz in many ways, and a lot lower than Europe, but wages are a lot lower too. I'm pretty comfy here, but YMMV.
Addendum: I put the same thing with a slightly different slant in this post in this thread. This post is also very on-the-ball.
No, you're still misunderstanding me. The act of publishing a copy of a text -- the text, not the footnotes or annotations -- places that copy of the text under the copyright of the editor or publisher.
So, for example, the text in your 1998 edition of Shakespeare is under copyright. The words "Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt" as printed in that edition are under copyright.Copyright law prohibits you from reproducing the text of an entire play from that edition. If you're very lucky, the text is identical to the text as printed in a 19th-century edition which is out of copyright; so in that case you may reproduce that version of the text at your whim. -- just so long as it's clear that it's the 19th-century edition that you're reproducing, and not the 1998 edition. One copy of Shakespeare is public domain, the other is copyrighted.
The rationale for why this is so is that every new edition of a text involves creative work. In the case of Shakespeare, that involves things like going through the text and evaluating which readings are preferable to which other readings: e.g. "Oh that this too, too sullied flesh", or "Oh that this too, too solid flesh"? Should the comma be there? Should there be another comma after "Oh"? and so on.
Again, this is a misunderstanding. Project Gutenberg will not allow you to upload copyrighted works, as that would make them liable for reproducing them unlawfully: that's what the text you quote means. However, once you upload a public-domain work, Project Gutenberg's act of reproducing it places that copy of the text under a copyright owned by Project Gutenberg. It is only on the basis of this that they are able to attach that licence of theirs to the start of each text: you can't licence something you don't own. They don't have an explicit copyright notice in the text, but that's not legally necessary; they do include a general notice in the Project Gutenberg Licence:
Regrettably, that is not true. The copyright to a given text of Shakespeare -- including the words of the poet himself -- is owned by the editor of the edition in which the text appears. It works similarly to taking photos of classical art. The Mona Lisa isn't under copyright: fine. But if you take a photo of it, you own the copyright to your photo. If you see a print of it in a book, you can't go copying that print: it's under copyright. Similarly, an editor of a text -- any text -- owns the copyright to his/her rendition of that text.
Well, yes and no. Texts of Shakespeare are available for free -- that is, texts published before 1932 (or whenever, I forget the precise date). Editions published later than that are under copyright. It makes a difference: the text printed in critical editions does change significantly from generation to generation.
The copyright to current editions will normally be owned by the editor of the edition. So, for example, the copyright to this edition of Julius Caesar , edited by Roma Gill and published by Oxford University Press, is owned by Roma Gill or Oxford University Press (depending on the nature of the deal made between the editor and the publisher). Basically, almost any book you see on sale in any bookshop -- unless (like me) you're in the habit of frequenting antiquarian bookshops -- is going to be under copyright, even if the author is centuries dead.
Similarly, it is likely that, for example, out-of-copyright books available on books.google.com are under copyright by Google, though Google doesn't seem interested in enforcing its rights. Books available on Project Gutenberg are certainly under copyright, or there'd be no reason to enforce the use of licences prepended to each book there.
Current editions of Shakespeare aren't.
The translations aren't. For out-of-copyright versions, you still have to go back to versions published a century ago, where the translations are uniformly full of "thou"s and "thee"s and written in bad verse more incomprehensible than the original languages. In fact even modern critical editions of the texts in their original languages are under copyright.
In any country where the presid^H^H^H^Hime minister's word is law, I'd say that's a fair bet.
It's non-government. For what it's worth, Wikipedia has this to say (unsourced): video games
-- which certainly isn't the case with Bully, from everything we've heard.
I rather think they re-named it (it's canem, by the way, not canum -- the misspelling could make life difficult for someone trying to find it in an online shop) because they figured British customers would be alienated by the word "bully". School bullying is probably the single hottest issue in public discussion of the school system in the UK. Well, maybe number 2.
If you're going to suggest that evolution naturally and intrinsically tends towards larger organisms, 99% of all lifeforms in the world are going to disagree with you. It's simply wrong. Furthermore, I rather doubt there's any evidence in favour of human evolution tending towards larger humans, which is something you seem to be taking for granted.
Any anthropologist who claimed what you suggest would be 100% wrong. More than 99% by mass of all creatures on the planet are microscopic organisms without brains or nervous systems; even larger things like insects are almost infinitely more successful than mammals. Large complex organisms are statistical outliers that you expect in any random distribution: the only reason that numbers of large creatures increased over the first few hundred million years of life on this planet is simply that there was more time available in which those outliers could occur.
Poor example. Opera was the source of tabbed browsing, not Mozilla. (Opera wasn't the first, but was the most influential.)
Yes: you are missing TFA. You haven't read it.
Notice, incidentally, that Internet Explorer features the trademarked name "mozilla" as part of its user agent string.
Eudora and Thunderbird both use precisely the same storage format, viz. mbox, so I'm afraid the first of your reasons for switching to Tbird wasn't a terribly good one. Given this, I'd also suspect that the reason for why your e-mail is taking up so much space is not caused specifically by the change of e-mail client. I'd suggest either (1) you're getting much more e-mail these days; or else (2) you've never done "File - Compact Folders". (Tbird should normally remind you to do that; perhaps it hasn't. Still, it does require more user maintenance, as others in this discussion have pointed out.)
Surely CR/LF won't be an issue? I should have thought that if it were, everyone would always have problems sending/receiving mail between *nix/Mac/Windows e-mail clients. And even if it were an issue, surely any decent app will auto-detect which to use? If a very basic text editor can do it, Eudora certainly ought to.
Agreed. When I was using OS X a year ago I too used Thunderbird, the main reason being that Mail.app just didn't do threading properly -- at the time, anyway.
It's not isolated: I've had that problem a few times too, and I think it's a result of importing mail from other clients, or perhaps just some other clients (maybe OE import is ok, but I've also imported from Pegasus, Eudora, and Opera). Mind you I've had the same problem with other clients, so it's not just Tbird.