Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a
cut?)?
We just need to hope it's not a cut with melamine.
Ec
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Anthony wrote:
We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s)
listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)].
I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the
fact that I said charity was a less precise term above (which I said
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Finn Rindahl wrote
If there was more active admins, we could have done our job
better - especially when it comes to take the necessary time to
communicate with the other users who need help. The only way as
I see it to actually get volunteers to work at Commons is to
Todd Allen wrote:
Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which
determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One
may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy.
Prior-restraint censorship, or blocking people from seeing,
discussing, and thinking
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which
determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One
may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy.
If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is
a
Fred Bauder wrote:
I must agree with Mr Gerard, and taking that position, or any position
by the Foundation is a road I don't want to see WMF go down. I don't
want WMF to alienate anyone... anyone. The information must be free,
and global. For everyone.
Please don't intrepet this message
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 11:02, David Gerard wrote:
Yes. However, it could be a valuable wiki to create privately. Generic
hosting is (a) really cheap (b) often includes MediaWiki out the box.
The wiki is unlikely to be vastly overloaded, so cheap hosting
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and telling
their
stories constitutes taking partisan sides in political disputes. It's
educating people about the impact of these events, plain and simple.
If we cannot present the personal tragedy
Fred Bauder wrote:
Can you and Kurt come up with a proposal that doesn't abandon our
fabulously useful and marketable air of neutrality?
Yes, good thought, I think we could. After all, it is a sort of cemetery.
Maybe it would be better to start the project on Wikia. That would
Erik Moeller wrote:
As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
volunteers like yourself), and I hope that we will continue to
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
A prize for best cross-media reuse of content - I love it. I will
contribute to the prize pool one large gnu, and one piece of similarly
huggable CC swag, signed by free-content luminaries To Be Named.
--SJ
How does
Marcus Buck wrote:
Tim Starling hett schreven:
Marcus Buck wrote:
In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
is something like Latin. With the difference, that Latin fell out of
H wrote:
Beta wikiversity is a hub for multiligual cooperation and the
incubator is just part of it.
The proposed multilingual wikibooks is for hosting books which cannot
find home comfortably in any language edition.
It is fitting to have, for example, the link from a page in
Sam Johnston wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If you are of the opinion that things can be done differently, please
explain how. A printer makes money, that is how he earns his crust. So how
would non-profit printing work. Does it exist ? You are also under the
impression that we are meeting
Sam Johnston wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Just how much control do you expect from the Central Committee? Sure,
it's a given that some will-intentioned initiatives will go dreadfully
awry. Bad things have happened in the past, and bad things will happen
Platonides wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
common problems and solutions:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
The software:
http://www.ideatorrent.org/
I wonder -
Sam Johnston wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
require any kind of fair use consideration.
I'm not talking about
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Is there a way to separate requests e.g. for different projects?
Wikimedia Commons, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikipedia. Plus a
general/default section for stuff that benefits multiple/all projects.
I considered that possibility too. If one such site catches
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
Wikibooks wouldn't handle it
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/28 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/1/28 geni:
Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be
printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This
would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be
practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information
Michael Snow wrote:
Requirements like that (the US used to
require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the
Delirium wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
do.
The problem is that moral
David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We
George Herbert wrote:
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
distinct from copyright owners etc.
The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a term of the
art in that
Anthony wrote:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you
defend people's constitutional rights if you think
Anthony wrote:
Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last
paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Per Eric Partridge's Origins, both words are Latin in origin. Moral
is from mores the plural of mos indicating a way of carrying
oneself, hence
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
could be proud of your work but not at least prefer your name to be on it.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
users of his material
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
it. How does knowing
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
divine rights of kings. Common
Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and
Philippe|Wiki wrote:
Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse
at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that
your messages about this topic to this list have been a little...
terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
A
George Herbert wrote:
That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online
communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the
community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of
change.
The model for this kind of community has
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dunbar's
Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If
geni wrote:
2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com:
The real danger is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces
and secret services of
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs,
technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier.
Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a free of
vandalism level and a well balanced, fact-checked and free of
anything
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
responses to avoid being tainted by them.
Since I think you make several insightful observations
well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
mind me
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
* Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the
question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may
include the
Fred Bauder wrote:
This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors.
Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude,
but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic
films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
it stopped my reading and my interest.
Thanks,
Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
*everyone's* work into the public
David Gerard wrote:
Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses
to a given legal threat model.
Not necessarily a given legal threat, but an even weaker perceived
legal threat.
In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or
malicious lunatic who has
The behaviour of three people in driving me out of adminship at
en:wikisource has left me bitterly disappointed with and deeply offended
by the length to which some will go to rid themselves of someone whom
they personally dislike. I cannot but view their efforts as anything
but a series of
geni wrote:
2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic:
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
I have no idea of the en.ws situation, nor do I want to have any idea, but
I would like to remark that leaving such things to the community decision
is a good idea only if the community
Birgitte SB wrote:
Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like
this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I
have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis
are autonomous on these issues. If
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Ray Saintonge wrote:
In the course of the discussion about me, I considered
coming here at an
early stage, but decided that I would let things play out
on wiki
first. I did not raise the issue here until a few
days after the
decision
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Language will not bind contributors who understand they
are protected by the copyleft provisions of both GFDL and
CC-BY-SA. That just will not happen.
In the real world much of the terms of use will be just so
much arm-waving, let us be realistic.
This just
geni wrote:
2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb :
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a
version of the history on their servers or more legally more solid
include a sheet of paper with a complete list
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
This is a (predominantly) English-language mailing list, so using
those traditions used in the English-speaking world seems to make
sense to me.
Of course, wasting resources on april
The Cunctator wrote:
A lovely article. The only pity is it doesn't note how much of this social
theory of wikis owes to Sunir Shah's pioneering work on MeatballWiki.
A nostalgically memorable moment for me was sitting at a table full of
beer just listening to Sunir Shah and Ward
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I am sceptical about automatic conversion. As you said, it is mainly a
solution for reading, but not for writing, because the source text is in one
specific spelling or character system.
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
The 10th circuit (or the US District Court for Colorado, which
actually made the decision on remand from the 10th circuit) does not
cover the ninth circuit either.
AFAICT Eldred v. Ashcroft remains the latest SCOTUS case on the matter.
If you read Larry Lessigs blog
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the assumption is that any Wikipedia will adopt the general
policies found on the English Wikipedia, but tailor them for local
conditions. A project which wishes to significantly deviate from the
general principles of everyone can edit, neutral point of view, and
Fred Bauder wrote:
However, I have faith that any
Wikipedia will, through experience, learn that such a policy is required
and adapt it. I think that is healthy, to develop policies as you learn
from experience. They mean more.
This is important, but in conflict with having pre-determined
Nemo_bis wrote:
Jaska Zedlik, 09/04/2009 19:49:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there
global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
Yes: e.g. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
(surprisingly not yet mentioned).
But
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic
And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
literature starts with 20-30 pages of
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/5/1 phoebe ayers:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/5/1 Samuel Klein:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/30 Samuel Klein:
I'd like to see Wikimedia as a community take some
geni wrote:
2009/5/1 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
Besides, this is a (slightly long) generation, which makes a useful
human-scaled measure to think in. I really want my kids, at some
point, to be able to say in exasperation, Mom, this isn't *your*
Wikipedia anymore! Or better yet:
geni wrote:
2009/5/2 Ray Saintonge:
If wikipedia like collections of information are still being written
by human beings in a couple of decades I will be rather surprised.
We've already to a large extent reached the point where the quickest
way to fill in info boxes would be computers
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Besides the off-planet complete database-backup I envisioned,
another intriguing conceit would be to start on the process
of transcribing wikipedia onto vellum with non-corrosive and
persistent ink (I don't think there are enough stone tablets, or
even clay for
Fred Bauder wrote:
If things were different, they would be different. Right now Wikinews can
serve as an aggregator of news first published elsewhere, but Google and
Yahoo can do it better. We can do some original work, at our own expense.
When and if the crisis affecting paper newspapers
Nathan wrote:
The biggest problem for Wikinews in my mind is that delivering news is a
competitive and innovative business. In the on-line and comprehensive
encyclopedia vacuum, Wikipedia was able to be get there first, with the
most and draw eyeballs and participants by being the leader.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this
Nathan wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'd like to see is a preferences framework that allows people to
subscribe to a set of opt-in viewing/reading options similar to how we
currently can add JS widgets. If any of them become so
Dedalus wrote:
Ziko wrote:
Nearly all already existing initiatives for open teaching materials use the
CC-NC-SA, the Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use. I was
told that you cannot explain to teachers why others should have the right to
commercially exploit their work...
Some may find this interesting.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/22/tech-vancouver-open-source-standards-software-city.html
Ec
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:16 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question.
Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the
end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
optimal, but I think it's highly likely.
That's a
effe iets anders wrote:
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
Samuel Klein wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's
geni wrote:
Now a lot of those languages are Indian which since they tend to be
fairly closely related and bilingualism is fairly common Bengali,
Hindi, Punjabi and English should cover most cases.
That's very generously European of you. The three Indian languages that
you chose are all
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:50 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Dead tree technology. Wikipedia based encyclopedias in the most widely
used languages.
Select the 40K most important articles (that will be fun).
Do you really think the 40K most important Wikipedia
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
It says that as long as we follow Google's protocol standard, they
won't sue us for infringing on their patents (patents necessarily
infringed by implementation of this specification). Oh, how very
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything
beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of
its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in
the next fifty years.
Bennó wrote:
Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is
obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least
minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with
'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair
Brian wrote:
Of course these are now things that you are able to fix and which can be
shared with everyone.
Sure, the funny errors are the most obvious and most easily fixed. The
problematic ones are more subtle, remain unnoticed, and more readily
spread misunderstanding.
Ec
On Wed,
who seek help want to substitute that help for any exercise
of their own little grey cells.
I have no problem with using a machine translation as a starting point
because these translations are uncopyrightable beyond pre-existing
copyrights.
Ec
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ray Saintonge
Milos Rancic wrote:
I've got the first report. There are no information that something
happened to any Wikimedian.
Take a look at [1]. I don't expect bigger scale problems in Iran, but
not just because of that analysis. Except theocratic structures,
preset situation in Iran reminds me a lot
Anthony wrote:
Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything?
I don't know about any policy, but I think it should still be
discouraged. For me this has less to do with predation on other sites
than with our inability to keep up with the volume of data that would
Google have any greater
effect on server load than downloading a whole book of similar length
from Internet Archive?
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge
Brian wrote:
That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very
would not reasonably expect a greater accumulation
rate from Google.
Ec
_
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it
falls under the category of malicious software
Stephen Bain wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higginsparkerhigg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but
Samuel Klein wrote:
There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source
researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having
wikisource entries, translations, c.
Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public
domain texts, with page scans and the best
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
While there may very well have been widespread fraud, that alone
wouldn't be enough to explain away a 29 percentage point spread. A
strong line of national security scare-mongering is always
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
Okay, http://www.archive.org/details/catholicencyclo16herbgoog happened to
be the first book I randomly picked from Google Book Search. There's no
text version.
And the text version I find of other editions seems to be much
Tisza Gergő wrote:
Eddie Tejeda ed...@... writes:
ithttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html,
Wikipedians are generally grumpy, disagreeable, and closed to new
ideas.'
Fred Bauder wrote:
'Forget altruism. Misanthropy and egotism are the fuel of online social
production. That's the conclusion suggested by a new study of the
character
traits of the contributors to Wikipedia. A team of Israeli research
psychologists gave personality tests to 69 Wikipedians and
Steven Walling wrote:
1. You're wrong. Just today I myself received some kind words offlist, but
related to a thread. Just because you're not getting the air of friendliness
you desire (at this moment anyway), doesn't mean friendliness doesn't exist.
Getting friendly words offlist, says
Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
Marc, you comment is not very optimistic, but it was a great
incentive to do what I announced above. Hopefully others will be more
encouraged to voice their ideas about other matters, knowing they'll
find a friendly hear and some useful and very welcome
K. Peachey wrote:
They might not be, but with that San Francisco bus data issue [1]
happening at the moment, everyone's checking everything these days to
cover their asses.
[1]. The Battle Over Who Owns Bus Arrival Times:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1419595382.shtml
So why
Anders Wennersten wrote:
I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
I would suggest we
1. come up with a name for these types of groups -
Tris Thomas wrote:
I'm interested in people's thoughts on a new Wikimedia project-maybe
WikiWeather, which basically would do what it says on the tin. Along
with importing national weather from other sources(especially to begin
with), contributors could then put their weather where they
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/asia/10iht-malay.html
The Malaysian government has declared that science instruction will be
conducted in Bahasa rather than English. Parents, teachers and
professors are very unhappy because English is the language of
science.
Michael Snow wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/10 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
If someone knows someone, putting eight billion dollars a year into
English-language teaching in Africa, China, Australia and elsewhere
would be a good place to start.
You're going to have
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The UK Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipo.gov.uk) says:
...
That's the relevant bit of law. Is the intellectual input and
investment of resources involved in taking such a photograph
substantial?
Anyone who's been around here for any amount of time is
1 - 100 of 378 matches
Mail list logo
