Some light humour:
http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm
Cheers,
Rob.
Hey,
I usually find your humour postings pretty funny but
didnt find that in the least bit funny... :(
Cheers!
R
--
- The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard.
- Creativity is
Some light humour:
http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm
I usually find your humour postings pretty funny but didnt find that
in the least bit funny... :(
Can't please everyone all of the time. Maybe you didn't get the joke
:B
Certainly it had be ROFLMFAO.
Holy crap, that
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 04:29 -0700, Ryan A wrote:
Some light humour:
http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm
Cheers,
Rob.
Hey,
I usually find your humour postings pretty funny but
didnt find that in the least bit funny... :(
Can't please everyone all of the time.
Can't please everyone all of the time. Maybe you
didn't get the joke :B
Certainly it had be ROFLMFAO.
Well..., to each his own :)
Have a nice day!
R
--
- The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard.
- Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster!
- Smile, everyone
At 3:44 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:33 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your
At 8:53 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
Don't expect that only one living
entity can envision such a permutation.
Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine
the truth of that statement.
The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at
tedd wrote:
At 8:53 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
Don't expect that only one living
entity can envision such a permutation.
Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine
the truth of that statement.
The phone was independently envisioned by two
At 7:28 PM -0500 7/30/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote:
What about descendants of the author? When anyone dies, their
descendants have a rightful claim on their parent's assets -- it been
that way since the dawn of mankind. Do you think you know better than
the
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 08:42 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 3:44 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:33 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have
At 1:50 PM +0100 7/31/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
Yes, but that's why it's called faith.
My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove or demonstrate
anything using God because the existance of God itself cannot be
proven or demonstrated.
-Stut
I wasn't trying to prove anything
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, tedd wrote:
At 7:28 PM -0500 7/30/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote:
What about descendants of the author? When anyone dies, their
descendants have a rightful claim on their parent's assets -- it been
that way since the dawn of
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 21:37, tedd wrote:
Extortion? Are you saying that anyone who owes a copyright is
obtaining money through force or threats? That sounds strange.
Wow, it seems you haven't heard of the RIAA and their racketeering.
--
Crayon
--
PHP General Mailing List
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 22:21, Larry Garfield wrote:
Commercial publication didn't exist as a concept until after the
invention of the printing press, which is when copyright was invented
in order to protect the business of the publishers.
Presumably you're talking about Europe, because in
--- Crayon Shin Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
Actually to make things easier just lets add a NOT
eg:
The opposite of BUYING is NOT BUYING
Ok, I admit it, am bored and came back
Yes, but that's why it's called faith.
My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove
or demonstrate
anything using God because the existance of God
itself cannot be proven
or demonstrated.
Stut,
There will be a demonstration of god's existance in a
little while, please look
You have a right to your belief, but that doesn't
make your belief right.
This works both ways.
Oh yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad.
Well, get both your dads together coz my dad can beat
both of them up.
Reasoning, I'm pretty young compared to most of you
guys so my dad is younger
Ryan A wrote:
Yes, but that's why it's called faith.
My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove
or demonstrate
anything using God because the existance of God
itself cannot be proven
or demonstrated.
Stut,
There will be a demonstration of god's existance in a
little while,
Hey!
Sorry, couldnt resist, no offense meant ;)
None taken. My beliefs are my beliefs and yours are
yours
Yep, and what I said was in jest, and you took it in
jest.End of discussion between us :)
Am just replying to anyone else who's reading this,
please lets not fork this into a god
Larry Garfield wrote:
If a plumber fixes your toilet, he gets paid once.
A plumber came recently to fix our hot water system. It took him less
than one hour. He got paid about $100.
If a writer writes a book, he gets paid n times, where n is a (hopefully for
him) ever-increasing number.
On 8/1/07, David Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Garfield wrote:
If a plumber fixes your toilet, he gets paid once.
A plumber came recently to fix our hot water system. It took him less
than one hour. He got paid about $100.
If a writer writes a book, he gets paid n times, where n
At 9:21 AM -0500 7/31/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
Disclaimer: Yes, I was raised by a pair of college history professors. :-)
Ahhh, that explains it.
Cheers,
tedd
PS: I'm done.
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 14:29 -0700, Ryan A wrote:
Hey!
Sorry, couldnt resist, no offense meant ;)
None taken. My beliefs are my beliefs and yours are
yours
Yep, and what I said was in jest, and you took it in
jest.End of discussion between us :)
Am just replying to anyone else
Larry Garfield wrote:
copyright infringement is NOT taking something
without paying for it. Copyright infringement is duplicating an expression
of an idea that is fixed in a medium without the permission of the copyright
holder. Money doesn't enter into it.
If the licence under which the
David Powers wrote:
When somebody distributes copies of my eBooks to others, they break the
terms of the licence. They also deprive me of income, as do bit torrent
sites that assist in that distribution. It might not be stealing in a
strict legal sense, but it results in financial harm to me.
At 8:50 PM -0500 7/29/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
You can call whatever you want anything you want, but that doesn't make it
true. For instance, no, copyright infringement is NOT taking something
without paying for it. Copyright infringement is duplicating an expression
of an idea that is fixed
Stut wrote:
This conversation is getting pointless guys.
I agree that it's going round in circles, and is best left alone.
* Nobody thinks copyright infringement is a good thing and nobody is
denying that it causes harm to every layer of the commercial chain that
exists to create and
tedd wrote:
At 8:50 PM -0500 7/29/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
If copyright infringement were taking something without paying for
it, then
anyone who's ever installed PHP is guilty of copyright infringement
unless
they sent Rasmus a check. That is, of course, nonsense.
No, it's not nonsense
tedd wrote:
But, the importance here is one of euphemism.
Calling the act of stealing something more palatable, such as copyright
infringement, simply makes it easier to do.
Conversely, calling the act of copyright infringement something less
palatable, such as stealing, simply makes it
At 3:14 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
This conversation is getting pointless guys. The argument being had
is about whether copyright infringement should be called stealing or
theft. Personally I don't believe it should, but going back and
forth on a public mailing list is not going to do
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
--
Crayon
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
--
Crayon
Crayon:
No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have three
choices: a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it.
with this
ridiculous, unhelpful, off-topic nonsense.
Regards,
Carlton Whitehead
- Original Message -
From: tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Crayon Shin Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED], php-general@lists.php.net
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:08:51 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:08 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
--
Crayon
Crayon:
No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
I think he meant alternative not opposite. I'd laugh for years if
someone tried to defend the position that stealing is the opposite of
buying. Then I'd send
tedd wrote:
At 5:46 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
But, the importance here is one of euphemism.
Calling the act of stealing something more palatable, such as
copyright infringement, simply makes it easier to do.
Conversely, calling the act of copyright infringement something
At 5:46 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
But, the importance here is one of euphemism.
Calling the act of stealing something more palatable, such as
copyright infringement, simply makes it easier to do.
Conversely, calling the act of copyright infringement something
less
At 5:43 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
Copyright exists to prevent unauthorised *usage* of material. It
does not exist to prevent the unauthorised taking of instances of
that material - that's what the laws regarding theft are for.
Well, when I *use* my neighbor's car without his authorization
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:08 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
--
Crayon
Crayon:
No, if
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or a victorious state that just
subjugated your previous state).
But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception.
At 7:37 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
I think he meant alternative not opposite. I'd laugh for years if
someone tried to defend the position that stealing is
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:06 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:08 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and
unto God the things that are God's
At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or a victorious state that just
subjugated your previous state).
But illusion all we
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:23 +0100, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or a victorious state that just
subjugated your previous state).
But
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:23 +0100, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or a victorious state that just
subjugated your previous
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:35 +0100, Stut wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:23 +0100, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:33 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or a victorious state that just
Don't expect that only one living
entity can envision such a permutation.
Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine
the truth of that statement.
The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the
same time. The same is true of calculus. So you
tedd wrote:
Don't expect that only one living
entity can envision such a permutation.
Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine
the truth of that statement.
The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the
same time. The same is true of
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:44 -0400, tedd wrote:
Don't expect that only one living
entity can envision such a permutation.
Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine
the truth of that statement.
The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans
On Monday 30 July 2007, David Powers wrote:
Larry Garfield wrote:
copyright infringement is NOT taking something
without paying for it. Copyright infringement is duplicating an
expression of an idea that is fixed in a medium without the permission
of the copyright holder. Money doesn't
On 7/31/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007, David Powers wrote:
Larry Garfield wrote:
copyright infringement is NOT taking something
without paying for it. Copyright infringement is duplicating an
expression of an idea that is fixed in a medium without
On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote:
Our entire legal system is built on allowing (granting permission)
certain actions and not allowing (not granting permission) other
actions.
You do not have permission to steal. And if someone has not granted
you the permission to use their whatever and
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:28 AM
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote:
Our entire legal system is built on allowing (granting permission)
certain actions and not allowing (not granting
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote:
Our entire legal system is built on allowing (granting permission)
certain actions and not allowing (not granting permission) other
actions.
You do not have
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:08, tedd wrote:
No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have three
choices: a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it.
Rubbish. You can borrow, lease, hire purchase, rent, and there are
probably other options as well.
--
Crayon
--
PHP General Mailing
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:45, tedd wrote:
Well, when I *use* my neighbor's car without his authorization it's
called stealing
If your intention was not to keep the car on a permenant basis then you
would probably be prosecuted for joyriding rather than stealing.
How? Nobody is not being
Really, I had expected more mature commentary from the adults on this list.
So did I. I expect adults to display morality and values.
Really? Have you hung out with many computer geeks?
Oh..wait..morality..I thought you said maturity. Pardon me. :)
--
PHP General Mailing List
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 29/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Something can be illegal without it being theft. The idea that if
it's not theft then it must be OK is the bullshit argument that I am
pointing out as bullshit.
That's a valid point, but
On 28/07/07, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If indirectly affecting the market so that prices change counts
as stealing,
then Coke and Pepsi build their business models around stealing from each
other.
Apache/PHP/MySQL are then
On Saturday 28 July 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 28/07/07, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If indirectly affecting the market so that prices change counts
as stealing,
then Coke and Pepsi build their business models around stealing
On 29/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Something can be illegal without it being theft. The idea that if it's
not theft then it must be OK is the bullshit argument that I am pointing out
as bullshit.
That's a valid point, but you are playing lawyer's games. It's not
theft,
On 7/26/07, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man-wai Chang wrote:
You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to
decide whether you are gonna buy it.
Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly
neverending) thread.
http://xkcd.com/294/
-Stut
Haha,
On 7/26/07, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/26/07, Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/26/07, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man-wai Chang wrote:
You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to
decide whether you are gonna buy it.
Not even slightly
Man-wai Chang wrote:
You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to
decide whether you are gonna buy it.
Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly
neverending) thread.
http://xkcd.com/294/
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List
On 7/26/07, Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/26/07, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man-wai Chang wrote:
You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to
decide whether you are gonna buy it.
Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly
Am 2007-07-23 15:56:12, schrieb Sancar Saran:
It was still ripping, They got 18 USD you got 2 USD. This is sucks. I'm not
sure author of Harry Potter acceps same condition.
You made everyone rich except yourself...
From the 18 USD, they payed me the proofreader and helped me to get
better
Am 2007-07-21 01:08:39, schrieb Dotan Cohen:
My reference to dead trees was not meant to imply an environmental
reasoning behind my preference. But, if you insist, then the 'lost
energy' is actually heating my workroom in winter. That means that I
don't need to run a heater.
Like me in
Am 2007-07-20 22:15:07, schrieb Tijnema:
Old paper can be recycled, lost energy from computers can't ;)
Tijnema
- END OF REPLIED MESSAGE -
Not realy right because I run three Sun Blade with 32 CPU's and with
around 100 HDD's each and the Power
Am 2007-07-21 00:29:08, schrieb Tijnema:
And it runs the airco in the summer ;)
I do not wotk in summer since for 2 years my Dual-Opteron
was gone because I had over 48°C im my appartement
(no it was not in Marrakech/Morocco but Strasbourg/France)
7000 Euro cooked/burned/fucked!
And this with
Am 2007-07-19 19:41:32, schrieb Tijnema:
One word:
Useless!
The watermark can be easily removed, and the guy who puts in on the
net will simply remove it, and can't be traced :)
Not realy except you know the WHOLE original text.
I would put some weird (unknown) phrases into the text..
On 7/24/07, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2007-07-19 19:41:32, schrieb Tijnema:
One word:
Useless!
The watermark can be easily removed, and the guy who puts in on the
net will simply remove it, and can't be traced :)
Not realy except you know the WHOLE original text.
I
On Sat, July 21, 2007 3:40 am, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Saturday 21 July 2007 08:58, Richard Lynch wrote:
In the olden days, it often turned into slash the cover and donate
it
and collect tax break, I do believe, but I think that practice was
decried and has decreased.
Just curious,
Am 2007-07-16 18:52:18, schrieb Man-wai Chang:
All I'm really saying is that there are a lot of questionable things out
there, be it pirated software, books, movies and music, or other even
more deplorable things. These problems will never, ever be solved by
locking away the means
Hello Zoltán,
Am 2007-07-19 15:14:53, schrieb Zoltán Németh:
I didn't want to get involved in this thread, though it was interesting
to read...
However, an idea just came into my mind: what if you, as the author,
could offer a download for a price which would be the same as what you
get
Am 2007-07-18 12:13:04, schrieb David Powers:
It's also important not to perpetuate the myth that the authors of
computer books are in the same league as JK Rowling or Stephen King. A
book that sells more than 5,000 copies is the exception, not the rule.
I am selling over http://www.bod.de/
On Saturday 21 July 2007 08:58, Richard Lynch wrote:
In the olden days, it often turned into slash the cover and donate it
and collect tax break, I do believe, but I think that practice was
decried and has decreased.
Just curious, which part was decried: slash the cover or donate it and
On Friday 20 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote:
Perhaps your day job should stop paying you, because after you've
spent that time, you'll never get it back?
Is this make up things that Larry said day? It must be, because I
know
you're not that stupid, Richard. If my boss doesn't pay
On Friday 20 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, July 18, 2007 6:35 am, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Artificially created by the law, yes.
[/snip]
Just curious, if this artificiality did not exist what could an
author's
reasonable expectation be?
Starvation.
I eat quite well
On 21/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never said that artificial laws should all be thrown out. They should,
however, be understood in their proper context.
A physical object can only be in the possession of one person at a time, per
the laws of physics. Property law enhances
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 21/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speeding while driving is also an artificial law in that regard, as
there is
no physical law that says a car can only go 30 mph. That doesn't make
speeding OK or less illegal, it just means that it is not a natural law.
On Tue, July 17, 2007 9:42 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote:
Once I have written code or words, the time I have spent on that
is
gone. I
will never get that time back, regardless of whether or not I get
paid
for it
after the fact.
Last time I
On Wed, July 18, 2007 6:35 am, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Artificially created by the law, yes.
[/snip]
Just curious, if this artificiality did not exist what could an
author's
reasonable expectation be?
Starvation.
--
Some people have a gift link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to
On Wed, July 18, 2007 9:40 am, John Meyer wrote:
There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a
criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be
prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a
civil case.
This is a fundamental difference.
On Wed, July 18, 2007 9:19 pm, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
...all manner of interesting debate...
[/snip]
What, exactly, is the difference between this particular brand of
copyright infringement and taking the book from a bookstore without
paying for it? Am I committing copyright
On Wed, July 18, 2007 10:07 pm, tedd wrote:
At 9:19 PM -0500 7/18/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
Am I committing copyright infringement by standing in the
store and reading the book?
No, because that's allowed.
The publisher and author has given their permission for the book to
be sold in a
It's like defining good and evil -- at some point in the conversation
someone is going to use the words God or satan.
that's rather narrow minded.
t.
ps. sorry, i just thought i would spam some as well...
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
...all manner of interesting debate...
[/snip]
What, exactly, is the difference between this particular brand of
copyright infringement and taking the book from a bookstore without
paying for it? Am I committing copyright infringement
At 8:48 AM -0500 7/19/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
And a side note, while this thread may not have anything to do with PHP code
it is vitally important that those involved in the creation and business of
information and expression understand copyright law. You don't need to be a
professional
At 7:05 PM -0500 7/18/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote:
And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I
don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful
act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you,
At 7:01 PM -0500 7/18/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote:
And,
I've spent enough time in court to know the difference.
Apparently not.
And how much time have you spent in court? Rhetorical question and
not germane to the topic, but I have spent a
I have a book case next to me that has three three-foot shelves filled
with just php, mysql, javascript, css, ajax, html, and accessibility books.
I could not function without my reference library -- that's why I hate
job interviews.
I could write a foxpro program in a short period of time
Now if I could flush my Foxpro memory and replace the brain cells with
PHP books and manuals. :)
Oh... forgot the mess of HTML, XML, Javascript and CSS. This one is a
hard nut to crack
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce
[snip]
Artificially created by the law, yes.
[/snip]
Just curious, if this artificiality did not exist what could an author's
reasonable expectation be?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Larry Garfield wrote:
Artificially created by the law, yes.
All laws are artificial. I really don't know what you're trying to get
at with this.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
At 10:26 PM +0100 7/17/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
Nope, I'm just saying that if you want my work, pay for it. If you
get my work without paying, then you're stealing.
You know, this is a pretty simple and obvious concept. I can
imagine anyone arguing about it.
-snip-
There is no such
tedd wrote:
At 10:26 PM +0100 7/17/07, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
Nope, I'm just saying that if you want my work, pay for it. If you
get my work without paying, then you're stealing.
You know, this is a pretty simple and obvious concept. I can imagine
anyone arguing about it.
-snip-
There
At 7:29 PM -0500 7/17/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, tedd wrote:
How you got from what I said to what you're pretending I said I do not
comprehend. Try actually reading what I wrote before you accuse me of trying
to destroy authors' livelihood, m'kay?
It was not my intent
There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a
criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be
prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a
civil case.
This is a fundamental difference. The reason everyone thinks the terms
theft and
tedd wrote:
At 10:26 PM +0100 7/17/07, Stut wrote:
Ok, this is really simple. Stealing is theft and theft is stealing.
Infringing copyright is neither.
Then, we disagree.
I am always surprised as to how simple wrongful acts can be
diminished with spin. We live in a world of political
I didn't read the full thread (because it is 80 emails...)
But really, it isn't special that these books are found on the net,
and you really can't stop them, nor can the author of the book.
With a quick search, I found these books related to PHP(all free to download):
Beginning Ajax with PHP:
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
