and you write and annotate much faster on paper. If you want to keep electronic tracks of what you are doing, you can always take pictures of it. I take pictures of my white board all the time, and that works well for me.
Computer note taking is painful in my opinion.
Re:I only use real Unix, not fake crap like Linux
on
Solaris 11 Released
·
· Score: 3, Funny
We are French. We take Cooking seriously. Therefore, all our crepe are perfectly sized. There is no need to sort them. If they are French, they are properly sized!
(Now, that's the theory, but it does not happen in my kitchen.)
the authors of the original paper should be proud. They manage to get people to react to the issue out of the academic field. This blog post is an obvious reaction. Time will tell if it will change something.
"Want to know what saved me a LOT of cash? I removed the real thermostat and replaced it with temp sensors in each room and put a dummy one up that the wife can play with."
It is completely hyprocrit to submit paper to a journal and refusing to review for it on moral grounds.
When you submit a paper you consume reviewer time from peers. You have to give that time back to the community by reviewing papers.
You could claim that the publisher makes a lot of money on free labor from reviewers and that reviewers should be paid (which would make sense). But that wont make you progress toward open access journals.
Well, of course it is a real problem. I would love the system to just switch to openness in a night. I believe if the publication system was open it would work. Right now if I do not publish in high end journals (which happen to have access fees), I won't get funded. If I don't get funded I don't get paid and I need to find another job. Then who cares I am not reviewing for these journals? I am out of the system anyway.
Of course I would love all publications to be freely available. But right now, it is a move I can not make. If there were free access journal that are respected in my field, then the policy would make sense. But right now there are none.
Before going for the kill on journals behind paywalls, we need good open-access journals that are recognized by institutes. Before that, stopping publishing in these journals is just commiting academic suicide (unless you are so famous people don't care about your publication record anymore, which is not my case).
Well, if I understood correctly Physics already do that. Anything that's worth reading in physic is on arXiv. The questoin is whether computer science will start following the physics style or will keep on following the medical style.
And the one that matter for me (a researcher) is how I get funded. Basically I get funded when I can convince other people of how good I am. To estimate that, they look WHERE I am publishing my research; and most likely, they do not look at WHAT I am saying. The name of the conference or the journal is what matters most. What you are actually doing is not so important.
I know that suck. It makes me cry at night. But that is what it is. If I came not to publish in journal with no public open access, I won't be able to publish in journals that matter in my field. So I won't get funded.
I totally agree the public should be able to read what ever we write. But I can not give up my funding. (For the record: no funding, no food on my table.)
Moreover, that's basically a false issue. All journals and conference allow you to publish pre-print on your website. All my papers are on my website or in arxiv. So I am not even sure it matters so much.
Of course, complete open access for everybody would be better.
There is pretty much only in netherland that I saw bikes that brakes by peddling backwards. Personnaly, I find more convenient to have dedicated brakes since it allows to be ready to accelerate quickly despite I am currently braking.
Interestingly, neal stephenson makes the distinction between "beowulf" writters and "dante" writters. He explained that difference here, on a slashdot interview. That interview and in particular the answer 2 changed the way I see the difference between commercial authors and "intellectual authors" or even between academic researcher and R&D researcher.
I agree with you: "the cost to duplicate is different than the cost to produce".
However, you are missing two different points: -Without any legal consideration, you can get the object for free. Why should you pay? When you buy biscuit from two different stores, sometimes, one store is significantly cheaper than the other one for the same product (same brand, same package). So I pick the cheapest one. The point of GP is, "I can get the same thing for cheaper (and eventually better once you consider the lack of DRM), why should I pay more?" actually it is not "cheaper" it is "virtually free". -The second point is that you pay neither the cost to duplicate nor the cost to produce when you buy a cd (or ). The cost in the store IS unrelated. It is roughtly priced according to "whatever price I think will sell best". And at some point it will be sold for nothing or will even be thrown away if it takes to much place.
I would be COMPLETELY happy to pay collectively the production cost. Once the production cost is obtained, the content falls in public domain. But that model won't live because it is so difficult to enforce.
Actually that is the problem with the current model: It REQUIRES to be enforced, otherwise it collapses. Yet it is so easy to circumvent (because duplication is free) and many people can circumvent it with it collapsing.
If you take a comparison with making bread. You can produce bread yourself but it takes time and ingredient. The monetary gain from making bread yourself is too small for people to start making bread on their own. They could steal bread from the baker but it is difficult.
I do not think the current model can live. There are too many forces against it. That's why you see people trying to push alternative models like "you work for free" (most likely won't work) or "pre-production based funding" such as "patronage" or "on demand" production which, I believe, is the only model that can work. That looks much better than "put a cop in every house", or "put so many DRMs people won't be able to copy", or "sue a quarter of the planet".
That's one of the thing I *hate* android and "modern interfaces" for. They are hiding the directory structure, often using some meta data included in the file for sorting such as the EXIF data. They do not seem to care about the directory structure (which is meta data as well). They just assume the user does not know how to use directories (which is definitely true for some users). But come on, if I have 10000 files, linear order IS NOT the way to go.
GNU/Linux is the full operating system. The kernel itself is just Linux. Android does not run the GNU stack, just the Linux kernel. So he is right calling it Linux and not GNU/Linux. The mainstream Debian runs GNU/Linux. However, the kfreebsd architecture runs the freebsd kernel on top of the GNU userland and so it is called (or at least should be called) GNU/kfreebsd. (The k is there to express only the kernel is used, all the system tools come from GNU)
It might not only be out of order execution. It might must be cache. 8 cores certainly run on more than 1 L3 cache. More cache=>(possibly superlinearly) faster
I do not know much about these technologies. But for commercial use, you either have a stand, a register, a car or something a little bigger. You can afford to have a "wifi digital camera" that sends the picture to a printer. You can look at it first and then decide whether you want a printout or not. And you can keep logs and backups.
Slashdot Mirror
I should distribute printout of that post in my son's school...
and you write and annotate much faster on paper. If you want to keep electronic tracks of what you are doing, you can always take pictures of it. I take pictures of my white board all the time, and that works well for me.
Computer note taking is painful in my opinion.
wow. Are you keeping tabs on everybody like that?
Why not? A smartphone has an expensive upfront cost, but if you run it on wifi, there is no extra monthly cost...
We are French. We take Cooking seriously. Therefore, all our crepe are perfectly sized. There is no need to sort them. If they are French, they are properly sized!
(Now, that's the theory, but it does not happen in my kitchen.)
the authors of the original paper should be proud. They manage to get people to react to the issue out of the academic field. This blog post is an obvious reaction. Time will tell if it will change something.
"Want to know what saved me a LOT of cash? I removed the real thermostat and replaced it with temp sensors in each room and put a dummy one up that the wife can play with."
That's EXACTLY what I need!
grab some pop corn and look at people going crazy on halloween!
It is completely hyprocrit to submit paper to a journal and refusing to review for it on moral grounds.
When you submit a paper you consume reviewer time from peers. You have to give that time back to the community by reviewing papers.
You could claim that the publisher makes a lot of money on free labor from reviewers and that reviewers should be paid (which would make sense). But that wont make you progress toward open access journals.
Well, of course it is a real problem. I would love the system to just switch to openness in a night. I believe if the publication system was open it would work. Right now if I do not publish in high end journals (which happen to have access fees), I won't get funded. If I don't get funded I don't get paid and I need to find another job. Then who cares I am not reviewing for these journals? I am out of the system anyway.
Of course I would love all publications to be freely available. But right now, it is a move I can not make. If there were free access journal that are respected in my field, then the policy would make sense. But right now there are none.
Before going for the kill on journals behind paywalls, we need good open-access journals that are recognized by institutes. Before that, stopping publishing in these journals is just commiting academic suicide (unless you are so famous people don't care about your publication record anymore, which is not my case).
man, you can't do that to me!
I have mod point and I don't know whether I should mod ou insightful or troll...
Well, if I understood correctly Physics already do that. Anything that's worth reading in physic is on arXiv. The questoin is whether computer science will start following the physics style or will keep on following the medical style.
And the one that matter for me (a researcher) is how I get funded. Basically I get funded when I can convince other people of how good I am. To estimate that, they look WHERE I am publishing my research; and most likely, they do not look at WHAT I am saying. The name of the conference or the journal is what matters most. What you are actually doing is not so important.
I know that suck. It makes me cry at night. But that is what it is. If I came not to publish in journal with no public open access, I won't be able to publish in journals that matter in my field. So I won't get funded.
I totally agree the public should be able to read what ever we write. But I can not give up my funding. (For the record: no funding, no food on my table.)
Moreover, that's basically a false issue. All journals and conference allow you to publish pre-print on your website. All my papers are on my website or in arxiv. So I am not even sure it matters so much.
Of course, complete open access for everybody would be better.
We should take that news with a grain of salt. One can not just spread NaCl on its hard drive and get performance kick.
There is pretty much only in netherland that I saw bikes that brakes by peddling backwards. Personnaly, I find more convenient to have dedicated brakes since it allows to be ready to accelerate quickly despite I am currently braking.
by saying: "Do you want to see my rocket? It has a lot of fuel!!"
Interestingly, neal stephenson makes the distinction between "beowulf" writters and "dante" writters. He explained that difference here, on a slashdot interview. That interview and in particular the answer 2 changed the way I see the difference between commercial authors and "intellectual authors" or even between academic researcher and R&D researcher.
http://slashdot.org/story/04/10/20/1518217/neal-stephenson-responds-with-wit-and-humor
I agree with you: "the cost to duplicate is different than the cost to produce".
However, you are missing two different points:
-Without any legal consideration, you can get the object for free. Why should you pay? When you buy biscuit from two different stores, sometimes, one store is significantly cheaper than the other one for the same product (same brand, same package). So I pick the cheapest one. The point of GP is, "I can get the same thing for cheaper (and eventually better once you consider the lack of DRM), why should I pay more?" actually it is not "cheaper" it is "virtually free".
-The second point is that you pay neither the cost to duplicate nor the cost to produce when you buy a cd (or ). The cost in the store IS unrelated. It is roughtly priced according to "whatever price I think will sell best". And at some point it will be sold for nothing or will even be thrown away if it takes to much place.
I would be COMPLETELY happy to pay collectively the production cost. Once the production cost is obtained, the content falls in public domain. But that model won't live because it is so difficult to enforce.
Actually that is the problem with the current model: It REQUIRES to be enforced, otherwise it collapses. Yet it is so easy to circumvent (because duplication is free) and many people can circumvent it with it collapsing.
If you take a comparison with making bread. You can produce bread yourself but it takes time and ingredient. The monetary gain from making bread yourself is too small for people to start making bread on their own. They could steal bread from the baker but it is difficult.
I do not think the current model can live. There are too many forces against it. That's why you see people trying to push alternative models like "you work for free" (most likely won't work) or "pre-production based funding" such as "patronage" or "on demand" production which, I believe, is the only model that can work. That looks much better than "put a cop in every house", or "put so many DRMs people won't be able to copy", or "sue a quarter of the planet".
That's exactly what they do. They don't buy it! :)
That's one of the thing I *hate* android and "modern interfaces" for. They are hiding the directory structure, often using some meta data included in the file for sorting such as the EXIF data. They do not seem to care about the directory structure (which is meta data as well). They just assume the user does not know how to use directories (which is definitely true for some users). But come on, if I have 10000 files, linear order IS NOT the way to go.
Please, indicate me where you get a flight from the US to london for less than $400 and where you find a night anywhere in london for less than $100
GNU/Linux is the full operating system. The kernel itself is just Linux. Android does not run the GNU stack, just the Linux kernel. So he is right calling it Linux and not GNU/Linux. The mainstream Debian runs GNU/Linux. However, the kfreebsd architecture runs the freebsd kernel on top of the GNU userland and so it is called (or at least should be called) GNU/kfreebsd. (The k is there to express only the kernel is used, all the system tools come from GNU)
It might not only be out of order execution. It might must be cache. 8 cores certainly run on more than 1 L3 cache. More cache=>(possibly superlinearly) faster
I do not know much about these technologies. But for commercial use, you either have a stand, a register, a car or something a little bigger. You can afford to have a "wifi digital camera" that sends the picture to a printer. You can look at it first and then decide whether you want a printout or not. And you can keep logs and backups.
Yet polaroid are cool!
If they do that would be illegal!