You really should install Xandros' PRIORITY desktop distribution.
The following features are installed by default:
WTC images as the default wallpaper to constantly remind us of our need for prioritization and perspective.
Sally Struthers Dock-app counter that ticks off the number of starving people in third-world countries.
Integrated calendar and scheduler, including timed reminders for planned WTO protests.
globally-aware MUD client (GAMUD). Create one of seventeen politically-aligned characters for debate and discussion at the UN round table! ___
Seriously, just because I have an interest in this industry doesn't mean that I'm "squandering my finite, precious time on this earth playing video games." And I should think that the souls of those victims have a good deal more to do than to watch me eat breakfast- they're too busy laughing at your incredibly large sense of self worth, for instance.
"So many have gone up and done the same thing that there is very little drama [in going on the space taxi]," he said. "There's not enough danger, not enough novelty.... It's not like people can run around a space ship and fornicate or kill each other or do other things they do on TV."
Why not send Brittany or Michael J up with the winner, with the promise of some "TV-like things" (pick one, depending on who you get).
seems to me that the russian space program is a bit dangerous these days. I wonder what kind of deal pepsi swung with the russian mob to get a few seats on the space taxi (driver carries less than $20 in cash...)
It is immoral to ask the public to fund research with their tax dollars and then ask them to pay for it again if they want to see its results, via subscription costs.
If you need the results, such sites as pubmed , infotrieve , and scirus will provide you with all the results you'd ever care to read. Yes, these are abstracts and do not contain methods or detailed discussion, but the results are most often presented. Then there's pubmed central that only deals in journals that are free (as in beer). Most journals allow access to abstracts and results. If you really need the article, there's always your friendly neighborhood library. Finally, it's common policy for authors to furnish reprints upon request (at no charge to the requestor).
But you're obviously bent out of shape simply at the prospect of not providing the information (and rightfully so, I suppose).
But government action? Not a chance. Current policy for public funding agencies is that developments arising out of sponsored research are the property of the discoverer. In most cases the "discoverer" is a university, who reviews the work for continued development (e.g. University-owned patents, licensing, etc). However, if the U decides not to act, that discovery becomes the property of the principal investigator who may do whatever they chose with it including: selling it as a product, patenting, licensing the technology, etc.
In this way, many many many PI's have become stinking rich from tax-dollar supported (NIH) research. It happens all the time.
So why would the gov't decide that it was their job to make it all freely available?
You might actually consider that many scientific publications are paid by the authors- the journal really doesn't have much overhead. Page and graphic charges are quite high, and generally come out of the researcher's grant funds.
In fact, many scientific papers are marked as "advertisement", since the authors pay to print their results. I would think that the costs of archiving and online publishing are realtively small as compared to the high-quality paper that characterizes scientific journals.
Furthermore, most of the publications that I'm familiar with have searchable indices of published work in HTML, text, and.pdf format. Some even maintain archives that go back 10 years or more. So it's already being done- it's just that you have to pay to access it, *and* you have to pay to publish it...
Fundamentally flawed reasoning
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
this argument is fundamentally flawed.
the regulon in the semiosphere becomes, simply, human interest. If you consider CNN and the other sources of "e-information" as simple business, then they conform to an economic model of supply and demand. thus the regulon is borne out of societal support, which itself is a regulated process in part.
However, information as a conceptual thing is not driven by such economic pressure. nevertheless, as more than one astute post suggests, information *is* regulated at the individual level.
Accordingly, raw information does not need the kind of competition that katz suggests. it's unconsciously in the mind of the informed- every cogniscient person innately allows information to "compete" within the neural structure (a built-in regulon "feature" if you will). the darwinian equivalent of the "fittest" is the meme/concept/whatever that fits within the neural capacity of each individual. even animal thought processes work this way- an innate algorithm that establishes the best action based on prior knowledge. the "less fit" information may be simply rejected and discarded (thus fulfilling darwin's simplistic rule), or it may be retained on a "less valued" scale for future comparison.
one other minor point, the "traditional institutions" also thrive by the spread of information and are therefore not limited by the "regulon" concept as presented here.
succinctly, katz's post is an interesting intellectual study (e.g. "what if...") but it reduces to standard crap when analyzed in any detail.
Slashdot Mirror
You really should install Xandros' PRIORITY desktop distribution.
The following features are installed by default:
WTC images as the default wallpaper to constantly remind us of our need for prioritization and perspective.
Sally Struthers Dock-app counter that ticks off the number of starving people in third-world countries.
Integrated calendar and scheduler, including timed reminders for planned WTO protests.
globally-aware MUD client (GAMUD). Create one of seventeen politically-aligned characters for debate and discussion at the UN round table!
___
Seriously, just because I have an interest in this industry doesn't mean that I'm "squandering my finite, precious time on this earth playing video games." And I should think that the souls of those victims have a good deal more to do than to watch me eat breakfast- they're too busy laughing at your incredibly large sense of self worth, for instance.
Why not send Brittany or Michael J up with the winner, with the promise of some "TV-like things" (pick one, depending on who you get).
seems to me that the russian space program is a bit dangerous these days. I wonder what kind of deal pepsi swung with the russian mob to get a few seats on the space taxi (driver carries less than $20 in cash...)
I'm sticking with coke- better chance of survival
If you need the results, such sites as pubmed , infotrieve , and scirus will provide you with all the results you'd ever care to read. Yes, these are abstracts and do not contain methods or detailed discussion, but the results are most often presented. Then there's pubmed central that only deals in journals that are free (as in beer). Most journals allow access to abstracts and results. If you really need the article, there's always your friendly neighborhood library. Finally, it's common policy for authors to furnish reprints upon request (at no charge to the requestor).
But you're obviously bent out of shape simply at the prospect of not providing the information (and rightfully so, I suppose).
But government action? Not a chance. Current policy for public funding agencies is that developments arising out of sponsored research are the property of the discoverer. In most cases the "discoverer" is a university, who reviews the work for continued development (e.g. University-owned patents, licensing, etc). However, if the U decides not to act, that discovery becomes the property of the principal investigator who may do whatever they chose with it including: selling it as a product, patenting, licensing the technology, etc.
In this way, many many many PI's have become stinking rich from tax-dollar supported (NIH) research. It happens all the time.
So why would the gov't decide that it was their job to make it all freely available?
for all those MP3s. Imagine if the iPod were more of a PDA (with cell phone)???
In fact, many scientific papers are marked as "advertisement", since the authors pay to print their results. I would think that the costs of archiving and online publishing are realtively small as compared to the high-quality paper that characterizes scientific journals.
Furthermore, most of the publications that I'm familiar with have searchable indices of published work in HTML, text, and .pdf format. Some even maintain archives that go back 10 years or more. So it's already being done- it's just that you have to pay to access it, *and* you have to pay to publish it...
this argument is fundamentally flawed.
the regulon in the semiosphere becomes, simply, human interest. If you consider CNN and the other sources of "e-information" as simple business, then they conform to an economic model of supply and demand. thus the regulon is borne out of societal support, which itself is a regulated process in part.
However, information as a conceptual thing is not driven by such economic pressure. nevertheless, as more than one astute post suggests, information *is* regulated at the individual level.
Accordingly, raw information does not need the kind of competition that katz suggests. it's unconsciously in the mind of the informed- every cogniscient person innately allows information to "compete" within the neural structure (a built-in regulon "feature" if you will). the darwinian equivalent of the "fittest" is the meme/concept/whatever that fits within the neural capacity of each individual. even animal thought processes work this way- an innate algorithm that establishes the best action based on prior knowledge. the "less fit" information may be simply rejected and discarded (thus fulfilling darwin's simplistic rule), or it may be retained on a "less valued" scale for future comparison.
one other minor point, the "traditional institutions" also thrive by the spread of information and are therefore not limited by the "regulon" concept as presented here.
succinctly, katz's post is an interesting intellectual study (e.g. "what if...") but it reduces to standard crap when analyzed in any detail.