Hello. I want to begin by thanking the National Archives for having me here, for allowing me to speak to you all today. I have made great use of the National Archive over my career as a historian. In there many times, I enjoyed the facilities and I've also made use of the founders online, which is an amazing resource of the National Archives. And I'm more than happy to return the favor by discussing my new book on this, their YouTube podcast. Now, a little about myself to explain the book. I am an American cultural and intellectual historian and liberty is an idea. And so this book is about liberty. I have many books about American political history, especially in the early years of the country. And this one covers politics of the Revolutionary Era. And I am a lawyer and property law professor. Slavery is a legal institution that deals with property rights in people. Now, the Revolutionary Era, which I date from the Stamp Act crisis, 1765, through the first Washington administration about 1795, witnessed a complex and intricate interaction between the formative American idea of liberty, so foundational to the formation of the United States and an interaction of that with the established fact of an American shadow slavery, which when the Revolutionary Era began existed in every, all 13, every color. Now, using a narrative framework, my book attempts to recreate that interaction. Now, there's way too much to tell from the book in one short interview or podcast. So allow me rather than to try to cover the whole book. There are lots of other things in the book. And allow me instead to string together some bits of pieces from across the book, a reading, as it were, from parts of the book that seem to me these parts strung out seem to fit together to tell a minor theme from the book. So what I'm going to say deals with one, but only one underlying question of the day that was addressed in the book, or to use the pronoun they would have then used, what is an American in that Revolutionary Era? So let me turn to reading these parts, which I tried to pull together coherently. In the beginning, all the world was America. So wrote the gaunt, sharp-nosed English philosopher John Locke in his 1689 Second Treatise of Government about a place he never saw, but played a major role in shaping. This one sentence encapsulated Locke's theory that people originally found nature vacant and uncullivate and made it their property by occupying and improving. Locke's allusion to America drew on the view ascended in Britain at the time that because Native Americans held land in common and did not improve it, Britons could make America theirs through occupation and cultivation. An influential English Whig theorist who, like other Whigs of his era, championed parliamentary supremacy over royal rule, Locke wrote his treatise in opposition to the claim that God gave absolute authority to the monarch. Under his theory, at some point in the distant past, people voluntarily formed governments to protect life, liberty, and property. Laws to use his own words. Laws ought to be designed for no other and ultimately the good of the people, he declared. And governments, again using his words, must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people. Individuals can choose to become enslaved, cannot choose to become enslaved because it violates the natural rights of liberty, Locke reasoned. And in a like manner, people have a duty to revolt against governments enslaving them by taking their property or liberty without their consent or the consent of their representatives. Being like other English Whigs really used the word slavery as a metaphor for a lack of political agents. Where people generally held in perpetual bondage, the metaphor might seem excessive or even outrageous when applied to less onerous impositions like taxation without representation. Still, it had the rhetorical force to engage and persuade. And potentially change the way people viewed burdens placed on them by the king or by Harlem. Now actual slavery existed. In fact, over two million enslaved Africans were shipped to the Americas for sale by 1700. And as an investor in the slave trading royal African company, Locke profited from it. In his treatise, Locke noted that conquerors could enslave captives. He termed this quote, the perfect condition of slavery. Further, as secretary to one of the founding proprietors of the Carolinas, Locke drafted the colony's initial 1669 Constitution, which established black slavery there by positive law. Quote, every freeman of Carolina, it stated, shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves. For Locke in the late 1600s, America offered an example of embryonic processes of political formation happening in real time. By the late 1700s, Americans saw his treatise and in his treatise, the sanction to take those processes to their logical end in revolution and independence. On shadow slavery, they could take what they wanted from this mis-messaging about slavery. Britons will never be slaves, citizens of the United Kingdom sang in the refrain of rural Britannia, a popular anthem from 1740. But those same British colonists, at least in the colonies, if not in England itself, might enslave others. Well, if Britain could not become slaves, then who could? Long before Europeans reached the Americas, slavery had persisted in the Western Mediterranean, which divided Christian Europe from Islamic North Africa. In that region, Christians captured and enslaved Muslims, and Muslims captured and enslaved Christians, and both trafficked in black Africans. Locke knew this. By the 1500s, traders from the two principal Catholic nations engaged in this process, Portugal and Spain, started shipping enslaved blacks directly from Africa to their New World colonies and, a century later, to the English, Dutch, and French colonies there. Unrestrained by religion, local custom, or natural law, these European Americans created a form of chattel slavery for blacks harsher than any known precedent. Slavery, by this time, had died out in England. It had been outlawed since post-Roman times, and no laws defined the status of enslaved person in British North America. By the time of the founding of South Carolina, however, in 1670, Barbados had emerged as the richest and most populated English colony in the New World. Sugar and slavery were the base, wind base, of its prosperity. Barbados dealt with its influx of black labor by adopting a series of statutes, making it the first English domain in the world to authorize chattel slavery. In slayed blacks and their descendants through the mother became the absolute property of their masters. For Britons, who remember, will never be slaves, to accept these laws, they must have viewed blacks differently from whites because no such statutes ever applied to any whites, not even the much maligned Irish. And in Barbados, such laws, applying only to blacks, appeared almost spontaneous upon the arrival of Africans. Now, all this mattered for South Carolina because casting about for settlers to populate their new colony and hoping to create a plantation economy, its proprietors recruited British Barbatan smallholders, pushed off their land by the expansion of sugar plantation. Enticed by Locke's constitution, which assured each of them, quote, absolute power over his negro slaves, and promises of extra land for everyone they brought, black or white, these white Barbatans began arriving in South Carolina with their enslaved blacks and slave code experience as early as 1680. At the time, no one even knew what plantation crop could thrive in the marshy low country around Charlestown. By 1690, they had found it in rice, which proved as brutalizing to produce as sugar and similarly dependent on enslaved labor. That year, Carolina enacted a slavery code model on Barbatan law. From South Carolina, those laws spread to other colonies in the American south. Even as a number of enslaved Africans reaching British North America surged during the three decades leading up to the American Revolution, immigrants poured in the colonies from Germany, from Ireland, from Scotland, and Wales. Prior to 1700, except for pockets of mainly Dutch settlers around New York, most white colonists came from England. Thereafter, immigration to the 13 mainland colonies became more ethnically diverse, at least with respect to people of white Western European ancestor. Early in the 1770s, the French American writer Saint John de Cravica took up the ethnic diversity of America by posing the question, what is an American? He was asked, is either a European or descendant of a European, hence the strange mixture of blood which you will find in no other country, Cravica answered. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American who, leaving behind all of his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new one from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. Cravica published these words in a book of made-up letters from a fictional Pennsylvania farmer named James to an anonymous English correspondent. Capturing the simple pleasures of life in a new land, the book became a literary class with these sense, the ones I have just read, its best known passage. Even though one letter depict Native Americans, their numbers reduced by old world diseases and their lives degraded by alcohol abuse, living alongside white colonists and others have mentioned James' own enslaved Negroes as he calls them. Cravica identified only Europeans and their descendants residing in the colonies as Americans, members of an all-white melting pot. The affable saiyan of a Norman nobility with aspirations of becoming an author and writer himself. Cravica went to Canada as a French army map maker during the French and Indian wars and stayed on as a surveyor in New York, Hudson River Valley after the French lost. He married into an English-American loyalist family before returning to Europe with book manuscript in hand after the ongoing American Revolution made the borderland between British occupied New York City and the rebel held upstate unsafe, especially for a loyalist like him. Stopping in London, Cravica arranged in 1781 for the publication of his Letters from an American Farmer. Reflecting a viewpoint widely shared by Enlightenment era Europeans and Americans alike, Cravica's letters contrasted the liberty of ordinary Americans with the quasi-slavery of European peasants. Here a man is free as he ought to be, Cravica said of whites in America. We are strangers to those feudal institutions which have enslaved so many. The change came from moving to America, he wrote, where cheap farmland abounded. From being the slave of some despotic prince to becoming a free man invested with lands to which every municipal blessing is attached, it is in consequence of that change that he, this transplanted European, becomes an America. Now despite having never visited the American South, perhaps while in England seeking a publisher, Cravica added a sensationally, purportedly first person account of chattel slavery in South Carolina to his already written letter, an added letter as it were. In it he wrote, while all enjoyed festivity and happiness in Charlestown, who would imagine the scenes of misery over spreading the country? He wrote in that new letter about whites living in the capital of what he called the richest province in North America. Quote, their ears by habit are become death, their hearts are hardened, they neither see ear nor feel for the woes of their poor slaves, from whose painful labors all their wealth proceeds. He incorporated graphic depictions of extreme cruelty that many read as eyewitnesses account, even though they were not. By this time, Britain had focused its efforts to suppress the revolution. We're talking early 1780s, they had refocused their efforts to suppress the revolution on those southern colonies and sought to discredit the appeals to liberty of southern patriots by highlighting their embrace of chattel slavery. As augmented, Cravica's manuscript supported this Tory narrative. Unfortunately, the book did not come out to 1781 after the unexpected American victory at York Town derailed British efforts to conquer the south. The appended letter remained in the text. Read with the others, it created a contrast between the British treatment of enslaved blacks in the American south with the idyllic, but equally fictional, lot of those in the north. About his own enslaved blacks and others like them in the north, for example, Cravica wrote, in health and sickness, they are tenderly cared for by their masters and are truly speaking a part of the family. Still, Cravica did not account even these northern blacks, whether enslaved or free, made him born or not, among the people he called Americans. Indeed, as much as he might bemoan their treatment under chattel slavery in the south, he accepted the enslavement of blacks at least in the north, where, as he put it, quote, they participate in many of the benefits of our society without being obligated to bear any of its burdens, like political agency. To Cravica, they simply were not Americans. By this point, the intellectual ability of blacks, which Cravica in his book Disparaged, had emerged as an issue in revolutionary era debates over slavery. Slavery chattel slavery, the enslavement of blacks, had become a major issue during the revolutionary era, with the north mostly turning against slavery, resulting in the first great emancipation, actually in world history, but the south had doubled down on the institution. In his dialogue concerning slavery, the abolitionist-minded New England theologian of the era, Samuel Hopkins, probably the most influential minister and theologian of his era, complained that white Americans, viewed blacks as, and I'm quoting here, fit for slavery because we, he wrote, as whites, have been used to look on them not as our brother, or as in any degree on a level with us, but as quite another species of animal. Slavery would end, he promised, if we only the vested ourselves of these strong prejudice, which have insensibly fixed on our mind and consider blacks as by nature and by right on a level with us. On the other side of this emerging debate over slavery in states fighting for liberty, some American supporters of slavery had begun to make the case for enslaving blacks on an objective sounding evidence of inborn racial inferiority, often drawing on the arguments of the then well-known Scottish philosopher, David Hume. Quote, I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to whites. There never was an individual black eminent either in action or speculation. Hume wrote in his xenophobic 1753 essay on nationality traits. Continuing the quote, such a uniform and consistent difference could not happen in so many countries and ages if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Now such reasoning slew in the face of traditional biblical beliefs of common descent from a divinely created first human pair, Adam and Eve.  His pro-slavery American followers embraced the same religious heresy to defend their enslavement of Africa. Following a long but specious recitation of the relative mental, emotional, and physical attributes of whites Thomas Jefferson reached a similar conclusion in his 1785 book, Notes on the State of Virginia. Comparing them by their facilities of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory blacks are equal to whites and reason much inferior in that in imagination, they are dull. Jefferson wrote, Never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration. A litany of such observations led to his supposition, Jefferson's supposition, quote, the blacks, whether originally a distinct race or may distinct by time and circumstances are inferior to whites. They are following Hume in Jefferson's mind, a different species. Coming from a hero of the American Revolution, these widely read comments spurred American abolitionists. And there were many of them by then white and black on a search for black exceptionalism. They could not lead Jefferson's view of inborn black inequality unchallenged if they hope as they did to abolish slavery. If they could refute them, however, they felt that the logic of the proclaimed truth of human equality and the rights of all men to liberty in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence assured their eventual success in the abolition of slavery in America. New England, New Jersey abolitionist David Cooper, for example, wrote in 1783, if these solemn truths, those in the Declaration, if these solemn truths are self-evident unless they, that is the supporters of slavery, unless they can show that the African race are not men, words can hardly express the amazing which naturally arises on what thing that the very people who make those pompous declarations of liberty are slaveholders. Abolitionists had Jefferson's polygenism in their crosshair. Princeton theologian Samuel Stanhope Smith, a critic of slaveholding, took aim at polygenism in a 1787 address to the American Philosophical Society published under the title of essays and the causes of variation of complexity and aimed directly to refute Jefferson's notes on Virginia. Marshalling far more observations of human types than Jefferson ever Marshall, Smith defended the biblical doctrine of one race as he called it by arguing that skin color and other racial traits derived solely from environmental causes primarily heat and sunlight with blacks being as he put it of the tropical hue. Moreover, Smith declared these superficial traits remain mutable. Africans removed to a temperate climate already existed some physical transition he claimed and those well fed and living in humane conditions change the most. Mental capacity, mistrust, which is as various as climate and as personal appearance is equally with the latter susceptible of change and improvement. Environmentalism, if accepted, demolished the scientific case for race based slavery. Opponents of slavery had long touted the enslaved Boston poet Phyllis Wheatley as an example of black literary ability. Indeed abolitionists had arranged arranged for the publication of her poetry but Jefferson in his notes on the state of Virginia had dismissed her from consideration as a counter example to his thesis. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Wheatley he had misspelled her name but it could not produce a poet he sneered. The compositions published under her name, this is Jefferson's view, are below the dignity of criticism. Well now, without accepting the inferiority of the race, given their treatment, some blacks did indeed feel like aliens in America. We have no country a black petitioner named Felix Holbrook exclaimed on behalf of many slaves as he put it through the Virginia Massachusetts legislature in 1773, a powerful plea for liberty. For her part, Wheatley regularly referred to herself as quote an African rather than as an American even though she had lived for decades in America. For example in one poem she wrote of evangelist George Whitefield preaching in America to quote Americans and to Africa. In another she wrote of English blood flowing through American veins even when embracing American ways Wheatley recognized her outclass steps. Casting for other examples of African American intellectual ability, White abolitionists found Benjamin Banneker. In 1791 Banneker, a free black farmer and albinac maker from rural Maryland near the District of Columbia, assisted the Quaker land surveyor Andrew Ellicott in surveying the new federal district. Banneker lived near Indicott's family grisness and Andrew Ellicott Hudson had encouraged Banneker's talent, innate talent, developed talent for computing the local times for sunrises or sunsets and other celestial phenomena. When Banneker sent a table of his calculations for 1792 through Andrew Ellicott who also made such calculation. Ellicott forwarded it to Pennsylvania abolition society president James Pemberbrook who shared it with Philadelphia astronomers and mathematicians as evidence of the reasoning ability of black people. At age 60 with the first publication of his calculations in an albinac for 1792, Banneker became the American abolition movement's prime example of native black intellectual ability. His distinctive attribute involved the skill and inclination to compute the future local times for regular celestial phenomena that is those caused by cyclical patterns of the moon and planets as observed from a particular place on earth which daily rotated on a tilted axis and annually revolved in an eclipse around the sun. Complex mathematical problems in a day before computers. Like any mathematical computations making these tables took skill but at a time when people relied almost exclusively on the sun and moon for light and farming and fishing remained principal locations these specific calculations had practical value. People typically accessed at reach them, obtained them in annual albinacs keyed to particular places because these would be different for different longitudes and lads latitude. Benjamin Franklin had published a widely read albinac for Richards from 1732 until he moved to London in 1757 and reap great profits from the enterprise. The immediately popular New England albinac farmers later known as old farmers first appeared in 1792 the same year as Banneker's appeared for the Chesapeake Bay region. The embryonic American abolitionist movement stood behind Banneker's albinac from conception to completion. In 1791 after Banneker cast his calculations for 1792 and sent them to Ennecott which led to its circulation among Philadelphia abolitionists. Leaders of the movement supported its publication in an albinac for 1792. How much they helped with the overall project remains unclear because there are many things in an albinac besides the calculations but they professed that the calculations themselves of celestial and tidal phenomena were Banneker's alone. The editor's purpose held the albinac as and I'm quoting here an extraordinary effort of genius by a stable descendant of Africa who by this specimen of ingenuity evinces through demonstration that mental powers and endowment are not the exclusive excellence of white people. The introductory introduction of the book of the albinac itself the published introduction carried testimonies to the accuracy of Banneker's calculations from American philosophical society president David Rittenhouse the great astronomer and of course the American philosophical society was a leading intellectual society in the country at the time and in that introduction Rittenhouse wrote every instance of genius among the Negroes is worthy of attention because their oppressor seemed to lay great stress on their supposed inferior mental abilities. Rittenhouse was an abolitionist he was making this point. The manuscript of his albinac completed by August of 1791 Banneker sent a copy to Jefferson with a letter making his case for the rights of blacks to liberty quote we are a race of beings who have long labored under the abuse and censure of the world Banneker wrote and have long been considered rather as brutish than human and scarcely capable of mental endowments. Then he continued in this letter to Jefferson having heard that you are a man far less inflexible in sentiments of this nature than many others Banneker addressed Jefferson with a mixture of deference and assertiveness I apprehend you will readily embrace every opportunity to eradicate that train of abuse and false opinion which show generally prevailed with respect to us meaning black Banneker offered his albinac as evidence of the reasoning facility of blacks such a work and I'm using his words Banneker's work such a work by a member of the African race should show that one universal thought has given beings to all of us and endowed us with the same facility about blacks and whites in America Banneker added however variable we may be in society or religion however diversified in situation or color we are all of the same family we are all American he as much as said and I am as much as an American as you it is letter to Jefferson then the sitting secretary of state Banneker then made his case against slavery third he wrote jettison any pretense of deference suffer me to recall to your mind that time in which the arms and tyranny of the British crown were exerted with every powerful effort in order to reduce you to a state of servitude Banneker continued this sir speaking to Jefferson this sir was a time when you clearly saw into the injustice of the state of slavery and publicly held for it there's true and invaluable doctrine we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness you were then impressed with the proper ideas of the great valuation of liberty Banneker went on yet at the same time Banneker charge you meaning jefferson you persist in detaining by fraud and violence so numerous a part of my brother and under groaning captivity and cruel oppression and remain guilty of that most criminal act which you professively detested in others with respect to yourself Banneker closed this portion of his letter with an admonition drawn drawn from the biblical job put your souls in their souls then he implored jefferson regarding his enslaved blacks thus shall your heart be enlarged with kindness and benevolence toward them and thus shall you need neither the direction of myself or others in what manner to proceed herein Banneker had made his cape for liberty to a white america still in frail with black slavery within 10 days of receiving Banneker's letter jefferson replied with a courteous or a sentence no but never changed his behavior he persisted in holding people in slavery and as president defended state sanctioned slavery the supposedly scientific debate or monogenism or the common ancestry of all peoples that Banneker was upholding and written house and smith versus polygenism the view of hume and jefferson intensified in antebellum america with the spread of slavery in the south and southwest and the rise of abolitionism in the north and upper midwest as a rule anti-slavery scholars took one side pro-slavery scholars took the other polarization over the issue reigned in american science as much as it did over slavery in american society when the matter of geographic the geographical spread and containment of slavery reached congress with the missouri compromise in 1820 which admitted missouri as a slaveholding state but otherwise barred slavery in federal territories north of the new state's southern border jefferson called it quote a fire bell in the night he warned a geographical line coinciding with a marked principle moral and political once conceived and held up to the angry patients of passions of men will never be obliterated and every new irritant will mark it deeper with the enslavement of over 1.5 million blacks in the south by 1820 jefferson wrote quote we have the wolf by the ear and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go sanctioning slavery jefferson wrote quote is the exclusive right of every state which nothing in the constitution has taken from them as he saw the missouri compromise sounded the death knell of the union agreeing with jefferson that a republic based on liberty could not survive a sharp factional divide over slavery ibrahim lincoln thought the prospects for union differently than jefferson quote a house divided against itself cannot stand lincoln quoted from scripture in its speech launching his campaign for the united states senate from illinois in 1858 i believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free i do not expect the union to be dissolved i do not expect the house to fall but i do expect it'll cease to be divided it will become all one thing or all the other lincoln's celebrated house divided speech represented his prophetic response to the 1857 supreme court decision in dread scott versus stanford versus sanford where chief justice robert tony asked quote anna negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold their slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the constitution of the united states to answer the question he added quote we must inquire who at the time were recognized as the people or citizen of a state in line with jefferson tony concluded neither the class nor person who had been imported as slaves mourn their descendants whether they had become free or not were then acknowledged as part of the peak those are tony's and so he ruled it remained it remains a through dread scott decision blacks were not america and congress could not outlaw slavery anywhere including in the territories where it had been previously banned by either the northwest ordinance or the missouri compromise at this point 25 out of 31 states bar barred all blacks freer enslaved from voting as lincoln predicted the union did survive the abolition of slavery it took a four year civil war costing over 600 000 lives even that war was not enough unraveling a constitution compromised by slavery required ratification of the 13th amendment in 1865 three years later the 14th amendment reversed the dread scott decision by adding quote all persons born in the united states are citizens of the united states and the states wherein they reside this included those born in slay then in 1870 the 15th amendment guaranteed all citizens black or white the right to vote or at least barred any from writing the right to vote didn't include women of course that would come later but it did not allow barring voting rights on basis of race the question of what is an america thus as this account portrayed remained a part of the american heritants long after the revolutionary war ended thank you and i thank the national archives for giving me this opportunity to speak


A few weeks ago we won €300.000 and we're going to use all of this money to fight the plastic waste problem Inviting passionate people from around the world to work with us to find a solution for this big plastic waste issue and it's going to be free and open source for the entire world to use Alright, so let me explain We've actually been working on this topic already for over 5 years developing machines to recycle plastic and people all over the world use them to gather local waste and turn it into something valuable and with this we created a movement, a big online community You can find all of the information on preciousplastic.com and it's cool having 200 plastic recycling workspaces around the world and a new one popping up every week However, the plastic problem is way bigger than that So we came this far thanks to people donating their money supporting us on Patreon and volunteering their time and skills to make this project happen Basically we had no budget and a very small team to execute our plans Now having €300.000 is a huge boost for the project For the first time ever we can put together a complete team of designers, developers, engineers, activists to work together Especially for this massive operation we have a brand new space right in the centre of Eindhoven, the Netherlands Dave, can you show them? This space is pretty big and there's another space here as well I haven't even seen it So we can actually use this space for one year for free So this is where we're going to develop precious plastic version 4 So yeah, that's a pretty cool gift And we're going to start next month, September 2018 Here's how we're going to do it We've got a workspace, a solid plan and budget We're going to use all of this to facilitate over 40 people from around the world All working in here on the plastic waste problem And we haven't figured it all out yet It's probably going to be chaos We need to figure out visas, places to sleep, kitchen, food, housing, toilets, materials, teams It's going to be intense We're going to go full on until either we solve the problem or we run out of money And it's probably going to be the ladder Either way it's going to be one massive open source collaboration So if you ever wanted to work on this problem, this is the time Come to the Netherlands with us and develop this version Visit next.preciousplastic.com for more information and see what we need help with And make sure to follow our monthly news to see how this massive operation unfolds Oh and to make sure to share this video around so we can gather the best possible team in the world


All right, it's cute.  It's cute though. That's always tough I like the earlier one. What are you timing there? Watch out again picky things. You're all saying you're okay with picky stuff. So I hope that's okay There's something wobbly in that step down Just look at the root. You can see how spacing wise it's fairly small and it's only from here to here Like if I put on onion skinning We are here. Let's go be Even moving camera. It's a tough tough to show. I hope you can see it. It's very very small in spacing and then you have Right there a big move big move Big ish move right and then we're back to somewhat small. I mean these are swallowed and bam that one suddenly pops Same thing here. So it seems like this could be on a cycle Maybe it's less at the end here That one's a bit accelerated. That's okay That's okay right there Okay, that's okay. All right. Let's keep going back. So let's watch out the root the beginning It's cute. I love the looseness of the top part Think arms are okay There's something about that. Her left arm is a bit wonky to watch out as you go up You hit this and then it kind of goes back down and Then over this way as opposed to a nicer smooth arc. Maybe I should change the colors So it's not that type of thing but softer or Switch up for that arc But the other thing too is that that arm is here and starts to swing forward especially from here And so watch out. You got small small small spacing wise Bam them pop forward over one To go into this but then to go back down it. I don't think it's needed As in this arm is swinging forward and it's already up there because of its swing and then it comes down for that So why not just have this arm here? Swing keep it here then down here down here down here into that You mean That we have a nice offset between those arms that don't come and overlap here to go down into that Giving this bit of a post-to-post feel not super possible. It's more twins mirrored feel But I think that offset with that with his left arm would be It would be kind of nice to just go about it like that. It's very cute. It's complicated mechanics, though it's nice and then I Think that's okay. I'm looking at the rotations of the body was it's doing a turn and a slight stop through there, but I think I think you're okay because you're Using this leg here to really go forward. I think that's cool. I just feel like your rotation is wonky as in Or the spacing of the whole body. I'm going to explain this correctly. It feels like you're going to the left It's all fine and then from here to here I feel like it's pivoting off of here if you feel that right there, right? You see the translate going to the left here. It starts to pivot over one frame And then suddenly we move bam to the left again, and then the rest is fine. It's just a one frame Hick up there These are a bit too parallel. I would probably If you're doing like this you can probably land with this foot already like this So that you end up in this position where this is in again for asymmetry. It's not so walk like an Egyptian There's a bit of asymmetry there at this point in this way this pointing this way It's cute Like I magically comes back to the head Now I know you got a read what's on the text and everything what's happening that not again I don't know how much you can tweak this Couple things this effect is tracked to the camera and not the object here I don't know if that's important to you what you want to do I don't know if you can put in the 2d card in That scene it probably messed up some of the renders and shadowing and stuff I don't know, but you can see how the effect is gliding over that thing picky thing again I don't know if that's important or not. I'm just gonna mention it The egg feels a bit simple its rotation. I would probably have a come out not so flat, but maybe I don't have to point it up But maybe at least a little bit and that way you got some rotation in there. So it's not just so straight So it kind of has a bit of a rotation as it comes down and then this is heavier It puts the hand here. I mean, this is all the section that has no weight or support So as it comes down The egg would technically Rotate down into something more like that, which I understand the text will be crooked So maybe what you can do is again going back into the rotation. It comes out in whatever angle Rotate rotate where the rotates so that when you're here It's actually Rotate it down like this through the text is like that and then on the land That's where it flattens out into this at least you'll get that effect of the backside rotates dogs It's heavier and unsupported because the hand is here and Add some complexity. What happens is that his arm falls very Okay, because you're having That move down and then that up move here. I know it's just very it's very complicated It's very tricky. It's always tough to do but Because you're holding that object feels like your hand is parented to this and you move in that object What happens then is that the orientation and rotation of this hand is always the same Regardless of the angle of the forearm and that gives it a IK feel and then you have a laughter and a lot of movement in Here and the arm which is not represented in the body as in Right there like this and this It was so separate from Body shell that it gives it that the IK look again, not sure how much you can do to tweak it Also We're looking at us though But I would find a way I don't if you can that's something that clients looking for but where you have potentially a more crooked mouth Basically giving this a bit of a line of action in the face But not this much, but this feels barely default. Maybe one side is favored over the other So it's not kind of mirror. I mean, it's not quite for the because of the angle We see more of this side, but it's just so mirrored in terms of the shape. So maybe you can Bring one higher you mean stuff like that. I know that's something they're looking for you can do It's something that would add some more life to it But when you have something like this when the jaw opens here I like that the head goes down with the jaw But then I will bring it back up a little bit and if you could if that mouth shape, you know, it will basically be here On this midsection, it will be a bit more to the right then on the lowest part here Then basically this whole thing kind of do you have controls to move that mouth? Opening around and give it an arc and movement Otherwise it feels like that's the opening this jaw up and down Encore is in out and that's it versus some more arcs and movement and there's Fleshiness and and looseness in the face structure. I don't know if that's something They're looking for you can do I know blinks I would usually ease into this more like you get to like 80% of where you are and then the last 20% or 10% They finish over six seven frames or so just to soften that some of the blinks feel a bit mechanical And we're we're kind of blinking on the 50% line Where I would if that's your open eye the lower the upper lid comes down to here and the lower lid only does maybe this much It feels like you're 50-50 like the lower and the upper lid kind of the same but only because You're you're ending lower, which is great but then we have a bit of a squish going into the middle section and opening I'm not sure if I would do that but I Would favor what you did Coming down just a bit lower. I hope that makes sense Right, that's your full eye That's where the lower lid goes and the the upper lid the lower just does a little bit Again, it depends how much detail you want to put in there like when the lids come down I would also move the eyes down by a couple frames. It's almost like the lid pushes the eyeball down so My question is if you have time for this because I never know you say, you know bring in all the information I'm just curious if that's just a waste of time for you to hear this. Do you want to add that type of you know Detail to this animation Can you do you want to? Because I feel like these are different like compared to the very first you show me like this is a really nice walk Cut some nice Complexity towards the end right you walk, but then you start turning a bit to the sides You got already a moving pivot out on the foot Like all that stuff is really cool All I would do is here the land would be a bit more like this If that's the floor the foot doesn't come down straight it comes down Slightly angled in line with the shin then you can go from this to flat The fingers are probably being the index a bit lower. It's kind of like a Continuous, you know index bit lower than mid and then pinky Whatever how many fingers what you got three fingers So good weight on that bat too boom Like that's why I'm only mentioning this because I feel like it's getting better and better The only thing I would say is the arm up here More or it's a bit even in timing. So you graph it if it was like Just straight and I'll give this a bit more of a slower up and then slow fast A bit of a hey I love that it touches this and this is moving like I said you get more and more detail, which is really neat Then I would just Push it's almost like the body stuff is now more advanced in the face That's why I mentioned like, you know some angle asymmetry shapes favored One eye a bit bigger than the other one one eye brow bit higher than the other one to open up this to this element Is that type of detail? I think really neat Watch out. That is a bit floaty through there that hand After that move here or that And if you want to just go here and rest it on the on the chest and then Bring it up for the tap Tap sells a bit slow probably go more You can't think you want to feel the The structure of that a bit more with some harder taps That's cute Love this here like that type of cute overlap. It's nice overshoot there It's cool too when you go sure that you cross those like that's the good stuff That was organic Asymmetry is the only thing I would say is on something like this Everything's moving at the same time Body arms legs into this beneath you go and then if maybe The So you have no break up here It would just be this rooting this this was sounds like you want to leave with the shoulder Which you don't really have so be the whole egg body rotating first dragging this Dragging the head and the two three frames later the arms kick in Also, this all moves as one piece. So it would be good if you do this The head is actually still angled this way and then catches up even if it just for two three frames we'll feel The dragon overlap in this And that's kind of that Well, actually you're starting to have see here it's angled down and then you have a slight turn, which is great It could also be need to not just rotation but translate so when it comes out actually comes out here And then Into that and that's where it ends up here, right? So, yeah, maybe this much of translate to the right. So he does that just this but And that's that Super cute really nice work Just remind me how far you want me to go and if that's something you want to incorporate or the client wants to see and you know if that's something that is These are appropriate notes like to me would be some things like even if you go through here. That's feels like a default hand So even when you go like that I would still have that thumb down and then on this you might have Index out but then you start curling these guys in and at that point that thumb would be lower Start to curve back in with the fingers and like how far do you want to go? Can you go? in terms of Details like even this here I would like put the middle finger here and leave that here That might be a bit also really twin. It's tricky when you have only three fingers or you just bring in the pinky closer Or something like that. Basically grouping of fingers. This feels like an even Separation. It's like a default. Whoa That is me Moving my frame Where were we? There we go. So just the default spacing of the fingers Even this here I would rotate probably to be more flatter towards us. So it's not flat flat This was like the same same flatness to camera Stuff like that. Alrighty. I'll leave it at that. You will let me know. Thanks All right, there's an email you can sign up. You can start whenever you want You can submit whatever you want. You get 16 submissions either way a like and subscribe would be awesome. All right. Thank you


Another one of the problems was the trademark restrictions. Let's see. And if you guys actually look at people.damian.org, Tilde, Evan, CC Summary, not HTML, you can actually see the summary of none of the issues as I'm kind of going through them. And so, yeah, and the trademark restrictions were the fact that Creative Commons is trademarked and it couldn't be used by anybody else but Creative Commons. Which is fine, but it's kind of confusing because you have to refer to the licensees if they want. And so that was one of the issues. And the major issue that is still kind of around in the Creative Commons 3.0 are the anti-DRM clauses. And I think most people here would agree that in general DRM is a bad thing. Having works that are not restricted by DRM is extremely important. But the problem is that there are significant number of devices, including, for example, the sewing play station and a couple others, which require that works be digitally signed in some way, shape, or form. For example, even works in Demian's archive have, although it's not really DRM because its users are overwriteable, there's some sort of restriction on the default set of packages that can be installed. You have to have packages coming from a place or a repository that's signed with a key that happens to be in the key ring, which has been added using app key or whatever. So, a very rudimentary form of DRM but a type of restriction on the types of works that can be deployed to a device. And so the CC license was written in such a way that it required that works distributed under a CC license, not being covered by DRM. And the problem with that is that normally the proper way to write such a license, or in my opinion, the proper way to write such a license, is to allow a work to be distributed with DRM, concomitant with a non-DRM distribution. In that way you can, you have full rights to distribute the work, because it's not, you have a copy that is not DRM encumbered, and you have a copy that is DRM encumbered for whatever stupid device you're using, but that's the only way that it will work. Unfortunately, and this is really where the breakdown came, we were unable to completely convince creative comments of the necessity for various specific devices, allowing this sort of dual nature distribution. And because of the complexity of the language required, specifically stated, okay, in the case where you distribute a DRM encumber, you must also distribute a non-DRM encumbered version, was basically lost on the cutting floor, because it was a complexity to the license. It did make the license more difficult to understand for people who were not used to reading licenses. And a significant number of people who were on the DRM advisory board, or sorry, the CC advisory board weren't necessarily, or weren't cognizant of the need for distribution in DRM encumbered to specific works. So they thought that by making, their logic is in fact that by restricting this class of works from being playable on players that only accept DRM works, that they would undermine the commercial ethnogamy of DRM-olden players. Which is, I mean, it's kind of a convincing argument. Sorry. Which is kind of a convincing argument, but not necessarily useful for pre-existing devices, which have, I mean, obviously the PlayStation stuff has been broken forever, but it is technically a form of DRM. So that's, in a nutshell, as convoluted as I did, the issues that we are facing. And why this is important is because, as you know, there's a large number of works on your Creative Commons license, and a lot of people are writing stuff on your Creative Commons, and we would very much like to have all these works available in Debian to be able to upload them to main because there's a lot of documentation that people are writing in Creative Commons. There's a lot of pictures, games, sound files, especially that people are licensed in Creative Commons, and we would like to be able to include them. But basically until those issues are ironed out, the first two that I talked about happen, but the DRM was ironed out. It's not necessarily clear that they can be incorporated in the Debian. What it basically has to happen is we'd have to have a GR or something, or FTD master would have to overrule Debian legal to save APs. Yeah, I mean, it's pretty rare for... Debian legal tends to be much more conservative than the project as a whole, but it only happens in cases where, like, the only one I can think of is GFDL works, and it was very much a compromise about those works. So would all the CC licenses have this and that DRM clause? Yes, the question is, do all CC licenses have this DRM clause? And yeah, it's not one of the add-and-take-away clauses it's present in all of them. I should, of course, mention that there are, of course, cases or classes of CC licenses which are inherently incompatible with the DFSG. Yeah, the non-commercial and some of the other ones, but the base course has this DRM restriction, which is a problem. Okay, so is there anything that I missed? I mean, I'm not entirely sure exactly what evidence is going to hit at that kind of overview. It's not really much of a problem, because it's basically, it's been fixed now as a 3.0 version, and it's only the fact that you could refer to Creative Commons. So it says that you... Yeah, so as far as I know, the 3.0 version, they've made it very, very good, and that's not part of the license. And there may be some still 2.0 version works that had that, or basically trademarked a bit, still in it, but assuming you talked about the license here, they should be in it. Is that like the clause that at the end of GPL, that says Ty Kuhn in the example and something, it was one of the good license? Oh, yeah, that's a little different, because there's verbiage in the GPL which specifically states that this is how you license stuff on the GPL. Yeah, exactly. It's sort of, and a lot of the licenses appear to be part of the license, which it wasn't intended to be. I think it was a clause that was at the bottom of the webpage centered it like a footer that was on all CC webpages, and people with their licensing stuff just copied it in, because it was there. Apparently that wasn't a HR or R or something. Can we now make random comments about the issue? Yeah, sure. I need a microphone about that. I guess, how about... Can I use this one? I can use this one here. Why don't we have this one? It's not here, but what do we do? We'll pass it to the microphone. It was unclear to me how the creative comments, Syntrosion, it tries to address the issue of non-licensing stuff freely by the users of digital cameras. Their primary example that I've heard said that we want to have an easy selection of licenses, so that maybe Panasonic or Sony can implement a camera where you take a photo, and then the camera asks you which CC devices do you want, and then you just click on it. So, how does there stand that DRM is completely out of the question? How does that go hand in hand with the collaboration with the industry? Did they explain this strange situation? Yeah, I'm not sure if they had a very good explanation. They just thought this was a good idea at the time. One of the issues is that they both want to have CC everywhere, and so they were thinking that it was more consumer-facing, rather than hardware. Whereas the other issue is that the media and the trends of media, which very much is the battle that CC is primarily looking at, they're not like we are, or deviant, we're looking at where we're primarily looking at through software. They're primarily looking at the issue of fighting in the AIR and the various arguments, restrictions. Doesn't that sound like they're picking up on the free software foundation vibe, rather than let's do something productive deviant vibe? Aren't they a bit extreme if they are doing something that general? I don't know if you can say it's extreme, because Demi sort of has both aspects as well. Yeah, we have both aspects in the day. At the end of the day, CC isn't making works. It's an enabling office to license their works in a specific way. It was at the end of the day, Demi had to make an distribution. It happens through the free software distribution, which is kind of interesting too, because at the end of the day, the free software foundation, and its sub-project to do, is making free offerings. So it's kind of a different thing. Yeah, three different viewpoints, ten points. Right. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I mean, I'm not an up-and-up on CCs in child politics, but it's hard enough to stay with the deviant. We have no politics of our own. It sounds a bit strange. They're like an RC bunch. They're not computer-oriented, and yet they see the DRM as the great evil, and then they want to eradicate it. So it's inconsistent in my mind, maybe, for them it's inconsistent. Yeah, well, I think part of the thing is, is a lot of them actually use these types of media devices to make comfort. It's a backlash. Right. I mean, one of their families, who is a person that he does a lot of... Sorry, can you read something? Corey, doctor? He's a... He's had a lot of experience with DRM devices, and it's an issue around it. Because it's sort of looking at it more in the consumer aspect, whereas in the computer realm, we've got stuff that use the source code to modify it. They're being... I can't blame my media that I purchased on any device that I want. Books that I've written. It's like if we were out to get, you know, compatibility and interoperability on Windows instead of making our own operating system and freedom of the team. Doesn't that sound like a good analogy? They are going out into the existing proprietary world, and then trying to fix that. Trying to propagate to other... They're sort of doing the advocacy part of the Free Software Foundation. So, only some software of this episode is actually written, okay? Why people who were made otherwise directly launching their SNFs. A lot of the software is just being produced, saying, hey, I agree with what the episode says. I'm going to license my work. We're just risking what it sees. It's that aspect. So, they're trying to convince the creator to the work, syncing like that episode. Convince the creator to the work. But, yeah, they do have such a different topic. A little software to put that in the line. I'll turn the mic over to someone else. I understand you're not leaving the session, but what's the purpose of this... What's the purpose of this session? I think we're very clear on the information on the topic now. We understand the problem. So, what precisely is the problem to devion? What's the purpose of this session? So, I guess, what are we going to do about it? Okay, so, as much as I could infer from the title of the talk and everything, what would be best if we could come up with some sort of understanding of what had brought, why we were able to convince CC of the difference between the philosophy and what we can do in the future, both with CC and because we're going to run into this issue when we run into it again with Sun, CDL, for example, and we're going to continue to run into it. What can you do to convince people who have different philosophies that are philosophies and are true philosophies and they're very confusing? But, or at least, it's in their best interest to try to come to our point of view or to meet some of the little things that have some sort of work that will be compatible with the industry? Very clear. So, there's been a start to convincing that and that's been rejected that way. So, what precisely is the problem with the devion? Is it the inclusion of certain things which are unnecessarily well-since within the devion description which is not there? Right, exactly. That's what we'd like to be able to do and I think to just resolve the last of all the issues there's no way that it could be done. Either, if we have to take creative problems or possibly talk to the authors to give a specific way to work around a little bit of what we're also facing. That makes sense to me. That sounds like a good place. Thank you. We have an example. Any software or material? I think once a package which is licensed under the NIOGF-LGPL it comes with a set of SVG pictures that an artist drew and the artist said, I want this to be share live for us. Please, in comments. Do we reject the package or do we keep it? Yeah, currently we reject it. So what is the exact advice given to maintainers? What do you do? Like go to the upstream and just yell at them or do you do a license? Is there an exact clause to be added, verbiage, already written? What do people do? I mean, from my perspective what I would recommend that industry authors do is try to license everything in the world under the same license. So if they've got graphics in a GPL word, the graphics should be detailed. Especially in the case of SVG there's no question what the source code is. It's the SVG file. And so, yeah, they should definitely, I mean, to the extent possible they should license it under the same license or the method they should do. And it's fine if they want to do a license. We don't care so long if there's some pathway through the licenses that are billed and that's the SVG that's written on their head. Yeah, one example, the reason we keep up there's kind of interesting is using files. I think from Friends on Fire that came up, because one of the authors is in Finland which has some sort of weird, perhaps it's not weird, I think it was weird from my American perspective. But a compulsory copyright assignment for real-life artists where this group that they assign a contract should collect royalties for the author. And any work that you create is automatically as it's copyright assignment to this group who supposedly collects the royalties for you. And you can't collect any royalties without assigning a contract if your assignment works. So that's another issue that sometimes comes up in this related case. Yeah, that's another thing. My question about the moral authority aspect of it is with this Creative Commons work group there's sort of various people who are sort of appointed or invited on to it which, you know, would be more from Debbie Legal's commemorial, but then at the end we have Creative Commons coming back and saying to us that although the DRM it can't be a problem because they've been disposed about in the FDL, we have the moral authority and do you think groups like this should have the moral authority or should everything go through sort of a vote of developers, GR or something? Or how could we actually have some moral authority to use with the Creative Commons without them or other groups to come back and tell us what their duty is? Do you have thoughts on that? Do other people have thoughts on that? Yeah, that's actually a good question. Sorry, just a brief response. I think you have moral authority but only in the group of people in a subset of people who believe in everything. The issue is how far the moral authority stands. Do you think Creative Commons can almost remodest the problems that are causing the development of the project? Personally, I don't know. It's always a question when you're dealing with subgroups of a project exactly how far a small subset can speak for the whole time. It's a very thorny question and I'd like to avoid as much as possible by claiming that I don't speak for myself. Which of course I do now. But yeah, it is a good question. I don't know how we can really convey that because in that case it sort of has a very anarchistic organization and there's no real way to say the project says unless you do it as a GR. I mean, even the DPL can make decisions on behalf of the project. It's still subject to being overwritten by a GR. And so there's a limit to the amount of the single person or a small group you can do. I mean, I think besides packages that's about the DT's authority. I think the best thing that can be done is to make the process as public as possible and people who disagree within the project their disagreement may as publicly as possible so that it's obvious or relatively obvious who has consensus and who doesn't. I don't really have a solution for that question and I was just asked the CDDL point of the line devil, you know, how does legal speak for the project when it's been over the project and there's not really an answer. Let's have this intriguing political discussion. Sure. The overriding was a pragmatic one. We decided that the anti-deering clause in the DFHG was set aside. The problem was set aside because the option was let's just release Sarge or Edgeworth. Right, it was Sarge. So, you know, it was a subjective vote, basically. We weren't deciding on the legal matters. We were deciding on the whole timing, the future of Demian, if you will, at that point. It was just, let's try down the legal thing or let's scale the legal thing because they are so cool. It was, okay, let's do the, let's just get past the issue. Right, yeah. I mean, I'm not trying to say that it was a direct, I don't know what to say. I mean, I meant that it was a case where the legal has, legal had thought that it was a much more of an issue that needed to be resolved completely. And in some cases, it was much more conservative in that aspect of the project, which wanted to be more pragmatic, which is always a, which is always a question because people who usually are looking at the license is going to be more conservative, I mean, or nitpicking, basically. Then the project of the law, which wants to get on with it and the FDL. Which is all right. Yeah, exactly, it's definitely a balance between the two. Just sort of thing about the Sarge and FDL link. The vote about releasing the Sarge, even with a lot of read documents, was July 2004. And then there was another one about the FDL in April last year. And I think the second of those, the sort of general statement about the FDL, I think it was about etch. It was about etch, because we were thinking that we have only six months for etch, we get to release at that point. Can you repeat that, please? Yeah, July. April 2006 or something. April. So April, and we were thinking, et cetera. Can you please use your microphone? Yeah. Was the April 100, I wrote. April 2006 original text, I think it's out into the towns. But did you approve it? No, for whatever reason, the primary option was to do that. But then it was actually an amended one that was passed. I can't remember who wrote that, and I haven't even got that in my notes. Okay. Which means we have to actually just slide aside. I don't have a slightly further thing. I have a position statement that says, why the FDL is not acceptable for Deleon, which explains why it is. Yeah. It was... Let's get back to the matter of who gets to speak for whom. I think that this whole situation, put the FTB master team between a rock and a hard place, because they are the ultimate deciding authority. They can claim, oh, Deleon legal teams do that, but it wasn't the Deleon's legal team doing anything. They were going through with that, and they were filing papers with the whatever agency in America. A legal liability was theirs, actually. So we're not making much sense of that whole thing, but about the moral authority issue. I think we still have a moral authority. As a whole, each of the three entities in the whole process may come a whole, which is, of course, amorphous. It's like an amorphous blob of opinions and statements and yelling and shouting and being called and everything, but the moral authority is still within our... There it exists. It's not articulated. It's not made into a position statement or anything, but there is still the whole thought about Deleon. And now about the creative comment thing. They do not have any moral authority, in my opinion. The FSS has moral authority, because they actually did produce software. That was licensed under the GPL and the LGPL and the other licenses. Even the GMDL that we all love to create. They did produce stuff under those licenses. So they have the credit. They have the street credit about that, and they have the authority to say, OK, we did the principle thing, and it worked. But the creative comments did nothing. They just recommended that other people do something that is principled and we support them. There's a gaping hole. Yeah. Well, I think part of the issue, too, is that the governance structure of CC isn't just clear. Although I have to admit that FSS has this issue as well, because it's not entirely clear at FSS besides RMS has the final say. Whereas in Deleon, it's quite clear. The final say, compared to the point of view of the document. Yeah. I mean, the final say, rest of the developers. At the end of the day, I mean, that's to either, by not doing anything taxically affirmed or by GR and overruling, set what happens. So in a sense, I was saying, we have the authority and we should be able to override either through saying we have the moral authority or either through saying we are smart in the new or either through saying this is our argument, listen to us or be condemned to eternal stupidity. You know, we have this sway, we have this power because we do something with the whole thing. Although we have to be careful, too, because people in CC, they actually do works as well. So, I mean, even though the group is a whole, this job isn't to make work. There are members, but they can do. So, I mean... In much less articulate way than ours. Yeah. And that may be why it's more of a use. I mean, and it's not so clear exactly who is making the decisions. Or why. But of course, it's probably the same if you're outside of getting and looking at it. It's probably different from seeing how these things work. Yeah. Whereas... Yeah. The actual problem, I think we have with them, is not whether they make this decision. It's whether they influence through their media campaigns and whatever they do. Because they do stuff. You know, they have this propaganda machine, basically, that is actually a good thing. And it's one day it may outgrow their current state and they will become a bigger thing than they are. So, at that point we have a real problem, because... Well, I think you're absolutely right. I think the number of works that are season-wise. Now, probably exceeds another number of works that are GDL. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would not be surprised if that was the case. That becomes by a magnitude larger than we can talk about. But yeah, very good empirical view. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Sorry I came in late, so I didn't touch the piano at all with this. Can you just quickly outline which CC licenses are an issue or are they not on the machine? Yes. What we're talking about is the server. And when it started, we had it in 2005, a group of people, a subset of legal, who were trying to convince creative companies to resolve a couple of issues, generic issues with their license. They're obviously in the set of classes, CC licenses, the non-profit licenses, that cannot be used in a period of time, so they're incompatible with the industry. But there were a couple of minor technical issues with the license, and the inability to issue DRM-encumbered works using the CC license. That was problematic for the DFSG. The reason that is is because we put both the students at DFSG-encumbered work alongside a non-encumbered work for use in things that are totally broken and only accept DRM, and it's like some of the PlayStation games. So, and to a lesser extent, even the archive is at some sort of restriction on it, because you can't, by default, install packages without overwriting that part. So that was basically a minor issue that we thought was pretty obvious and everybody would agree with us, but at the end of the day, we weren't able to convince creative comments that they should allow their other older students in their anti-ideal laws. So that's basically the issue, and we're sort of talking about why that happened, why we weren't able to communicate consensus from Debbie very well to creative comments, and sort of guessing in a general sense of whatever this is actually going to talk about, because as you know, I'm not good at it. Okay, I guess I could tie it up here. There's always any questions, or comments, or feel free to talk to me or email Debbie. We'll send you there. We'll yell at you and send you through. Thank you very much, and feel free to ask Evan what he was actually going to talk about as well as some insight.


Did you hear? Wikimedia has a sound logo. Created by Thaddeus Osborn, an engineer and music production enthusiast from the USA, the winning sound welcomes the audience into a world of information. To find it, we did things the Wikiway. We launched a collaborative global contest, open to everyone everywhere. We called upon sound enthusiasts from all over the world, and the world listened. We hosted hundreds of online discussions, over 20 community events, and received more than 3,000 sound logo submissions from over 100 countries, which were then narrowed down to 10 finalists. More than 2,000 community members took part in the voting, each having their hand in deciding Wikimedia's new sound logo. Soon, you'll be able to hear the sound wherever you listen to Wikimedia's content on a smart speaker, mobile device, and more. Stay tuned, and thank you for playing your part in finding the sound of all human knowledge.


Last year, I talked about butchers' warts, a condition that afflicts those who handle fresh meat for living because of the viruses in meat, but it's more than just a cosmetic issue. Earlier this year, a landmark study of cancer mortality in poultry workers was released. We've known that people who handle a lot of fresh chicken get a lot of warts on their hands, but the concern is that some of the ward viruses are oncogenic or cancer-causing. Poultry workers and poultry slaughtering and processing are exposed to these cancer-causing viruses, some of which are the most potent cancer-causing agents known in animals. But what does that mean for people? Well, compared to the general population, poultry workers appear to have excess cancers of the mouth, nasal cavities, throat, cancer of the tongue, the tonsils, the inner ear, then down the esophagus, rectal anal cancer, and liver, bone marrow, and blood cancers as well. The reason it's so important to study this group is because it's possible that the cancer-causing viruses present in poultry and poultry products could be transmitted to anyone handling raw poultry. Proper cooking will kill any and all chicken wart and cancer viruses, but the problem is that meat may come into our homes fresh or frozen and contaminate our hands or kitchen surfaces before it gets into the pot. Same concern with other meat. There's a fascinating case report about pork intake in human papillomavirus, an HPV, which can cause cancerous anal and genital warts.  They cut it off, but it just grew right back. And so they asked for a dietary history. He was eating more than a pound of pork a day. They told him to stop the pork, and the tumor completely regressed on its own, totally disappeared. The doctors were so blown away, they even went as far as to suggest that the low cervical cancer rates in Israel could be because they eat so little pork.


All right, next question is from jazz fitness. How do you know if you're getting results because of what you're doing or in spite of what you're doing? You're gonna you're gonna mess with jazz fitness those how to scat. Yeah, that's a If you okay, you gotta be careful not to play mind games with yourself because if you get trapped In the cycle of am I doing enough? It's just perfect. Um, that could really mess with you So number one are you getting good results? Do you feel really good? Are you getting good sleep? Do you feel healthy?  Here's where things get kind of weird if you're doing all that Getting great results. I feel good. I'm strong. I'm getting good sleep Healthy healthy libido skin looks good. Everything looks good. And then I sit there and I ask myself Could I be getting there faster? Am I doing the the right things? Am I perfect? What ends up happening from that is you end up overdoing things This is a game I used to get with myself if I saw some progress Then I would add more if I had a great workout. Wow, that was good. I got stronger next week I'm gonna do even more and you get trapped in this in this cycle of questioning yourself So really just you got to look at all those things and if all those things are doing well, you're probably doing okay Well, I I have a kind of a key indicator for you that you're not most people are gonna like to hear But it's true is if you're getting really fast results, they're probably not good Because the body does not build muscle and burn body fat very fast. It's not a fast process. It's a very slow process So if you know your goal at the end take either into the spectrum if your goal is to lose body fat You know, you have a 30 50 pound goal to lose weight and you know, you're losing five pounds a week You know or more Not good, you know, even if that's your goal. It's still that's not that's too fast Your body is most certainly not just losing body fat at that rate So if you're and then the same thing is true if your goal is to build you want to build muscle You want to add 20 pounds or 10 pounds of muscle to your body and you're gaining two pounds a week You're not gaining two pounds of muscle week. Just that the body doesn't do it that fat Not unless you're on anabolic steroids. So if you're an all-natural person, even then you're not gaining two pounds of lean That's my point is so honestly A really good indicator that you might be, you know, seeing results in spite of what you're doing or doing it Right is if it's really fast. This is a very slow process And if you're seeing major fluctuations on the scale week over week, it's too quick Regardless of what direction you're trying to go and that's that's a very very good point I would see this with weight loss a lot with clients, you know, oh my god. I'm doing everything right I lost, you know 12 pounds this month and I said, whoa, you know, hold on a second, right? Let's do the body fat test to see what's happening. He's like, oh, we lost some muscle Looks like we also lost a lot of water Um, you know, I would look at their program It usually consisted of a lot of cardio and a dramatic, you know, reduction in calories Here's another thing. Um is what you're doing Something you can maintain. Okay. So let's say you are getting good results Or you think you're getting good results and you think you feel good and all this other stuff But then you look at your routine your diet and you're like And you got to be honest with yourself. Could I do this forever? Right?  Maybe you are doing, you know, too much Maybe it's something that's not going to benefit you in the long term But again, you know, I do stress this don't get stuck in the mental game of Am I doing enough? I know I feel good But maybe I could do more because that cycle, uh, boy, can that spin in your head? Yeah, I keep waiting to get like a specific metric for this like I know hrv's been trying to tackle Uh, you know based on how you feel like how to interpret that on, you know The variability of your heart rate In the morning and also like we've talked about just testing out like your your force output in your grip And like how strong your grip was which I thought is smart Like so if there's a way that you can measure, I think strength is just a good measure in general to see Whether or not, uh, you know, your progression or you should back off a little bit And just keep that always in mind everything else aesthetic wise and, uh, you know weight loss or You know muscle gain. It's all going to revolve around like maintaining that strength and pay attention to a lot of signs Not just your your workouts or your weight loss or weight gain like You know, are you sleeping good? How is your energy? Do you have good mood? Is your skin look good? Do you have any signs of poor health? Um, you know, you could be progressing in the gym But be but you could be having bad skin or start to notice you're irritable or You know, you'll see bodybuilders do this when they get really really really lean at some point They start to lose their sex drive. They start to become irritable. Yet. They're becoming more shredded Is that something that would be would you consider that you know going in the right direction? And, uh, definitely when you throw in the is a sustainable question the answer is almost always no So those are the things you want to kind of ask yourself, but then at the end of the day if everything feels good Um, just relax. Relax in it. You're probably okay