Slashdot Mirror
The Weird Science of Tossing Stones Into a Lake
Interoperable writes "Researchers in Spain and the Netherlands add another piece to a centuries-old puzzle in physics: the dynamics of an object falling into water. This common occurrence has a complex anatomy that includes a thin 'crown splash' around the perimeter of the impact, a deep cavity of air following the impactor, and a high, narrow jet of water that results from the collapse of the cavity. The new research, recently published in Physical Review Letters, demonstrates that airflow through the neck of the collapsing cavity reaches supersonic speeds despite low relative pressures between the air in the cavity and ambient pressure. Such an effect has no analogue in aerospace engineering or other sciences because of the highly dynamic nature of the collapsing nozzle structure." It's funny that the APS wants to charge non-subscribers $25 to download what is available for free on the arXiv.
It's funny that the APS wants to charge non-subscribers $25 to download what is available for free on the arXiv.
If there's somebody stupid enough to pay for it, there's always somebody smart enough to charge for it.
Economic Darwinism hard at work, parting fools from their money since before 5,000 BC.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
My impression of the system is:
1) Hey, respectable journal! Here's my paper. You own it now. Please publish it?
2) Journal either publishes it, or doesn't. Either way, they own your paper and pay you nothing.
3) You want to spread the information, so you post it for free on the internet. This is a breach of copyright, but the Journal doesn't really care because the same number of people will buy the magazines regardless.
In my experience you only hand over copyright AFTER the paper has been accepted for publication, and you ARE allowed to post preprints on the internet. What you are not allowed to do is to take the final PDF that the paper prints and distribute it, even if it is word-for-word identical other than editorial changes.
Wait, what? Some "people" will spend $15 to $20 for the tickets to sit through 'Butterfly Effect,' 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' and 'Shrek' but still make themselves known to Big Brother as unclear on such a plain and simple concept as we have in this video? OK, put the cell phone down and step away from the 'candy.'
Notice these signs:
* The implication that all other people are stupider than the poster.
* Talking about geeky movies
* Vastly over-estimating the value of a movie ticket, showing this person never actually goes to the theater, because he has no friends and just downloads all the movies he or she watches.
* Totally out of place comment
* Exaggerated, unexplainable paranoia about big brother.
* Referring to 'drugs' in terms that no one who actually is on drugs uses.
Strangely, somehow even the slashdotters on youtube get more stupid.
Qxe4
I think that's correct. You can generate a pdf of the exact article that the journal has and distribute it freely because you retain the rights to the content. The exact formatting, however, is copyrighted exclusively by the journal so you can't distribute the pdf you get from their website.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
One costs you 25$ and was reviewed by peers, the other not.